Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5422673 — Property damage
Decided 24 Mar 2026 · Published 24 Mar 2026 · Application 5422673
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,704.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [I] attended on behalf of the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 19 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted responsibility for these amounts.
- The amounts for rent arrears and water rates are ordered by consent.
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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return all keys or remotes.
- The tenant accepted many of the landlord’s claims and the amounts for key and remote-control replacement, light bulb and doorstop replacement, general cleaning, and rubbish removal are ordered by consent.
- The tenant did not accept that she should be liable for the cost of the carpets being professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant must leave a property reasonably clean and tidy and often a vacuum of the carpet can achieve that standard.
- In this case, the tenant felt that a rug doctor would likely have achieved the appropriate standard and only agreed to pay for a professional clean as this was what the end of tenancy information said she must complete.
- The landlord said that the tenant had pets (which was accepted) and that the house smelled of animals and that the carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy after a vacuum and required professional cleaning.
- Previous inspection reports had referred to animal smells in the house.
- The statement from the professional carpet cleaner indicated that stains had not been able to be removed even by professional cleaning and discussed additional options for removal.
- In these circumstances, I find that the carpets did require professional cleaning and that, even this, was insufficient to remove all stains as per the professional report noted above. The tenant should therefore be liable for the cost of professional carpet cleaning.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
- During the tenancy damage was caused to the carpets in at least two places. The tenant accepted that this damage was more than fair wear and tear.
- After a reasonably protracted negotiation with the insurance company, carpet replacement was covered by two separate insurance payments and two excess amounts were paid of $1,000.00 each.
- The tenant accepted that the carpet had ben damaged in two separate places during the tenancy and that this was more than fair wear and tear. This amount ($2,000.00) is ordered by consent.
- During the tenancy walls and sills were damaged in the living room, hallway and one bedroom.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage in the hallway (for which an insurance claim was made leaving an excess payable of $1,000.00) and the windowsills ($517.50) and living room ($571.50).
- She did not accept responsibility for the damage in the master bedroom (claimed at $571.50).
- The post tenancy report shows considerable damage throughout the property which has not been claimed for and which the landlord seemingly considered fair wear and tear over an eight-year tenancy.
- The damage to the master bedroom is noted in the post tenancy report (“damage under window sill”). It is also visible in the post tenancy photographs (although the room is misnamed as “ensuite”).
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord also claimed $473.75 to remove damage to the driveway which the tenant described as graffiti.
- This damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, but the tenant denied that it had bene done by anyone at the property with her consent. She thought it was done overnight by others in the neighbourhood. She said that she woke one morning and the damage was present. She said that all of her children were at home in bed when it occurred.
- Given the nature of the graffiti, it is difficult to imagine that the tenant or anyone present with her permission would have done this.
- I found the tenant to be honest and forthright. She willingly accepted responsibility for much of the damage claimed by the landlord.
- I consider that it is most likely that this damage was done by unknown persons at the tenancy premises without the tenant’s consent.
- No compensation can or should be ordered in these circumstances.
- The tenant had accepted responsibility for repairs to the oven prior to the tenancy ending. She had been paying this off at $30.00 per week by agreement and had an amount of $40.75 outstanding.
- The initial correspondence about this issue referred to oven hinges and the tenant agreed to pay for this given that the hinges had been repaired only a short time earlier at the landlord’s expense and would have bene expected to last much longer under normal use.
- The tenant said that the seals were constantly coming apart during the tenancy and she did not think this was something she could have avoided. The Landlord acknowledged that this may have been the case, and, in these circumstances, I am not ordering the tenant to pay this balance given that the seals may well not have properly been her responsibility.
- The claims for the removal of the graffiti and the balance of the oven repair costs are dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
- The landlord requested suppression and has been substantially successful, so suppression is ordered for the landlord.
- Suppression is also ordered for the tenant on the Tribunal’s own motion due to the nature of some personal information disclosed during the hearing.
- As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.