Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5415915 — Property damage
Decided 1 May 2026 · Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5415915
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $884.05 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Pest control treatment$150.00 Lock replacement$767.86 Replace stove less 30% depreciation$454.30 Replace rangehood less 30% depreciation$210.00 Window and front bedroom wall repairs$873.89 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,684.05 Minus Bond$1,800.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$884.05
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference on 1 April 2026.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claims for carpet and wall repairs other than the front bedroom wall.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord claimed that the premises were not left reasonably clean as pest control treatment was required. The tenant agreed to this. An invoice for $150 was provided.
- The tenant agreed that the keys were not returned. An invoice for lock replacement was provided.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Stove – the landlord claimed that the stove was provided new and was damaged at the end of the tenancy as the elements did not work. Photographs of the condition of the stove were provided at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not dispute liability for the damage. The landlord provided evidence that the stove was purchased in November 2022 and sought the replacement cost of $649.00. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tribunal considers electric stoves to have an average lifespan of 10 years. As the stove was three years old at the end of the tenancy I have depreciated the amount ordered by 30 percent and order payment of $454.30. (b)Rangehood – the landlord claimed that the rangehood was damaged beyond repair at the end of the tenancy and provided a photograph of it off the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not dispute liability for the damage. The landlord provided evidence that the rangehood was purchased in November 2022 for $300.00 and sought the replacement cost. I consider the rangehood to have the same lifespan as the stove and order a replacement amount depreciated by 30 percent totalling $210.00. (c)Windows and front bedroom wall – the landlord sought the cost of repairing broken windows and the front bedroom wall and this was not disputed by the tenant. The invoice provided also included window latches and the screen door repair which were disputed by the tenant as wear and tear and the landlord agreed to deduct these amounts from the Watkin Home Improvements Ltd invoice. The balance of $873.89 is ordered. (d)Glass in fireplace – the landlord claimed that the glass door in the gas fire was cracked. The tenant disputed liability and claimed the glass was cracked from the inside. The landlord advised that the glass has not yet been repaired and has provided a quote dated April 2026 which records “Checked gas heater found glass cracked in my experience this would have had to be done by a physical accident from general use of Gas heater”. As there is no entry inspection photograph, the quote provided refers to an accident from general use and the repair has not yet been done I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear during normal use of the heater. Therefore, this claim is not proved to the required standard.
- The amounts ordered are proved. The amounts are less than the landlord’s insurance excess of $750.00 for each event. Other matters
- Although the debt is due immediately the parties agreed to communicate after the order is made to discuss a payment arrangement.
- Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. Having considered the factors in this case including the level of agreement reached on many matters in this hearing the Tribunal grants suppression of all party details in any publication of this order.