What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416631 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5416631?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $279.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $408.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416631?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416631 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5416631?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $279.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $408.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416631?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416631 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416631 — net $715.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: damage to walls	$279.45	Repairs: damage to walls
Replace furnishings: carpet replacement contribution	$408.00	Replace furnishings: carpet replacement contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$715.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.45

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416631 — net $715.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: damage to walls	$279.45	Repairs: damage to walls
Replace furnishings: carpet replacement contribution	$408.00	Replace furnishings: carpet replacement contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$715.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Rosemarie Gina Herewini and Lawson Sydney Hall-Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $715.45 from the bond funds immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenants did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the start of the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for refund of the bond, indicating that the tenants have already signed the bond refund form assigning the full bond of $1,920.00 to the landlord. However, the landlord confirmed they were happy for this bond amount to be deducted from any order made in this application about the other claims.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 14 November 2025. The tenancy lasted for 3 years. Burden of proof and evidence
The party seeking to prove the claims must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Carpets throughout the property in the lounge/dining areas, hallway and 3 bedrooms, which were damaged, had to be replaced at a cost of $5,623.00. b. That the walls had to be painted throughout the property, as the tenants’ children had ripped wallpaper, made marks on the walls and other damage, at a claimed cost of $2,070.00, which was one-third of the full cost of repairs for painting work.
The landlord provided a significant amount of evidence that included an Entry Inspection Report dated 9 November 2022, an Exit Inspection Report dated 18 November 2025, sets of close-up photographs of the carpets in the property both before the tenancy began and at the end of the tenancy, sets of close-up photographs of the walls at the property before the tenancy began and at the end of the tenancy, invoices and quotes for painting work and replacement of flooring, and much other evidence. Carpets
The landlord acknowledged there were some marks already on the carpets at the start of the tenancy in some rooms but said the property was still rentable at the start of the tenancy, whereas the condition of the carpets at the end of the tenancy, where they had a “stiff and crusty texture”, were further stained in some areas and more worn, meant the property could not be rented, even after the carpets were cleaned. The landlord clarified that the exit photographs provided of the carpets, close-up and otherwise, were taken before the carpets were cleaned.
The landlord sought the replacement cost of carpets throughout the property, considering also depreciation. They clarified they did not claim the cost of replacing vinyl flooring.
The landlord said the carpet had to be replaced in the lounge/dining room open plan area, in the hallway and in the 3 bedrooms, due to the tenants’ damage.
The sets of close-up photographs of the carpets before and after the tenancy were discussed in detail in the hearing. As a result of reviewing the photographs in detail and discussing them with the property manager in detail, I make the following findings based on the evidence provided: a. There is large brown staining present in the lounge carpet at the start of the tenancy, which is significant and noticeable. The exit photographs show this and only one other small additional brown stain, which is likely from the tenants. I find here that the evidence showing one small brown additional stain on the lounge carpet would be considered fair wear and tear in a 3- year tenancy and so dismiss this claim. b. I cannot see any difference in the carpet’s condition in the hallway before and after the tenancy from the photographs provided. As such, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim and this claim is dismissed. c. Bedroom 1 had pre-existing white circular stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy, with dents also. The exit photographs show a slight grubbiness, which the landlord described as dirty with a foul smell, like somebody had walked on it with dirty feet, but with no stains as such. I find the evidence to prove this claim is inconclusive as to whether damage was caused to this carpet in bedroom 1 during the tenancy, and so dismiss this claim. d. Bedroom 2 – it is clear to see large grey staining in the carpet here at the end of the tenancy that does not show in the entry photographs, so I find the landlord has proved the claim to replace carpet in bedroom 2. e. Bedroom 3 – there is a large area of white staining in the carpet at the start of the tenancy photographs, which also show in the exit photographs but possibly with a very small additional brown stain since entry. The evidence for this claim is somewhat inconclusive and arguably falls into the category of fair wear and tear over a 3 year tenancy. As such, I dismiss this claim.
I find the carpet damage in bedroom 2 from the evidence is likely intentional damage on the tenants’ part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
As such, I consider the full amount to replace all the carpets at the property of $5623.00. There were 5 areas recarpeted, the largest of which was the lounge/dining room, according to the landlord. Only the carpet replacement claim for bedroom 2 has been proven. Given this evidence, I find $1,200.00 is a reasonable cost to replace the carpet in bedroom 2, before considering depreciation.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged items is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The property manager did not know exactly how old the carpets were at the property but said they were likely replaced well before 2020 when their firm took over management of the property. From the photographs provided, the property manager assessed the carpets were likely around 8 years old.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of bedroom carpets in a rental property is around 12 years. As such, I deduct the $1,200.00 cost I find reasonable to replace the carpet in bedroom 2 by 66% for depreciation to an award of $408.00 to replace the carpet in bedroom 2. Walls
In terms of damage to the walls throughout the property, there was a detailed discussion and reference to the close-up photographs of the walls before and after the tenancy, during the hearing.
The landlord provided a quote for $6,900.00 to paint the property inside. However, this quote (which was later an invoice provided) included painting all the doors in the property, which was not claimed by the landlord. The property manager estimated about 10% of the invoice was attributable to work on the doors, which would be $690.00. Thus, I deduct $690.00 from the invoice for $6,900.00 as a result, to cover only the work completed on the walls that relates to the claim here, to reach an amended full repair cost of $6,210.00.
The landlord said at the outset of the hearing that they were only claiming 30% of the full painting cost, given the condition of the walls in the property at the start of the tenancy.
Given the evidence provided and discussed in detail, as above, I find the tenants caused extensive damage to the wallpaper, as there were several large areas in all rooms at the property where the wallpaper had been ripped significantly and marks drawn on the wall. This was present in every room at the property to some extent. However, I also note the property was not in ideal condition for its walls at the start of the tenancy either, as there were marks, mismatched paint and wallpaper over other wallpaper at the property before this tenancy. The landlord would likely have needed to get this painting work done anyway.
In reviewing the evidence, I find this likely to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants, given the number of ripped areas on the wallpaper and drawings on the walls. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
Given the evidence provided, and particularly the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy (where there were a number of issues with the walls), and at the end of the tenancy (where tracts of wallpaper had been ripped off in several rooms and there were drawings on the walls) I find it reasonable that the tenants contribute 30% of the amended cost of the invoice for painting, which I amended down to $6,210.00 above, which comes to $1,863, before depreciation.
The property manager said the age of the wallpaper was likely original and the property may have been painted around 1984 and not since.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years, so the lifespan of these painted walls has been greatly exceeded already. However, I accept that there would have been some limited life left in the wallpaper and painted walls so find 15% of the repainting cost would be reasonable in these circumstances, given the evidence provided. As such, I award the landlord $279.45 towards the painting of the walls.
The damage, as found above, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Bond
The landlord withdrew their claim for refund of the bond and said they would use the bond refund form signed by the tenant instead. The landlord said they were happy for any amount ordered in these claims to be deducted from the bond refund of $1,920.00, which has been considered in orders made above. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, they are granted name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416631 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416631 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions