Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436339 — Property damage
Decided 29 Jun 2026 · Published 29 Jun 2026 · Application 5436339
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
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 landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Melanie Tersea Margret Mita must pay [The landlord/s] $5,236.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1,680.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord, represented by Ms P and Ms E attended the hearing, along with the owner, Mr J. There was no appearance for the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy ended on 3 December 2025 as the result of a 90-day notice. The application was filed on 30 January 2026, which is within 2 months of the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $807.86.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e).
- The landlord provided photographs which show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy,and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted invoices for lawns and garden tidying and rubbish removal totalling $341.41 and removal of abandoned items, $287.50.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $342.25 for dry cleaning of one set of curtains in the lounge. The owner explained that they had mould on the back and stains all over them.
- The tenant did not return the keys. The lock replacement is included in an invoice for repairs for plastering. In addition the landlord submitted an invoice for some new keys for $9.00.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a washing machine, fridge and microwave. The owner did not know the age of the items as they were there when he bought the property 4 years ago. He has not replaced those items but it is reasonable that they should be compensated for that loss and I order $250.00.
- 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 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 provided entry and exit photos which show that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Multiple holes in internal doors and wardrobe doors b. Several holes in the walls. At least 2 were present at the start of the tenancy, but there were more at the end. c. Gouging of door by the latch d. Missing mesh and broken lock mechanism for the front sliding door e. Missing window handles in the kitchen and bathroom.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,575.50 for repair of five doors and replacement of one door, replacement of locks and fixing broken cabinet doors. That amount is ordered.
- The landlord also submitted an invoice for $500.25 for repair of the sliding door and replacement of the back door handle. At the hearing, the landlord was unable to show the damage to the back door handle. The cost of replacement locks has already been ordered within the amount of $1,575.50 above. Therefore this invoice is reduced by $125.64, being the cost of the back door handle replacement, including GST. Therefore $376.61 is ordered for repairs to the sliding door.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $173.25 for replacing the window handles in the kitchen and bathroom.
- The photos show that at the end of the tenancy, the garage was full of abandoned items and some were up against the garage door. The door could not be opened using the switch on the wall. Ms P said that the locking bar mechanism on the door had been damaged. The landlord submitted an invoice for $89.50 for repairs and that amount is ordered.
- I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord claimed $594.56 for replacement curtains in one bedroom. They were replaced with blinds. In fact, the tracking was missing, but the curtains were left on the floor. I order $200 as an estimate of replacement tracks for curtains.
- The landlord has had the house painted since the end of the tenancy. He submitted a quote, which he said was accepted, for $7,877.50.
- The photos show that at the start of the tenancy, there were two or three holes in one of the bedrooms, some paint was peeling and the wallpaper was lifting in several rooms. There was a large mark on a bedroom wall. It was well- presented, but certainly had signs of wear and tear. It is not reasonable that the tenant pay for refurbishment of a property that was not perfect at the start.
- I accept that some painting or wallpapering would have been required for the lounge, a burn in the kitchen and damage in one bedroom. I have decided it is reasonable that the tenant contribute $700 to this.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- 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 landlord claimed $928.00 for a second-hand replacement oven. The door did not close properly and was hitting the wall. The owner tried to get a part for the door but could not do so. The oven was in the flat when they bought property 4 years ago, and he did not know how old it was.
- The property manager assumed that the garage door had been broken by the tenant aggressively opening and closing it.
- I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the oven needed to be replaced because of the careless or intentional act of the tenant. This is not a case of clear damage caused by someone and so this claim is dismissed.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and order name suppression.