Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5442470 — Property damage
Decided 23 Jun 2026 · Published 23 Jun 2026 · Application 5442470
- Property damage
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 name and identifying details.
- Lauren Christine Browne must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.”
- In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
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. The insurance premium was $1,250.00.
- “Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
- I must take 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 in any determination.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy. I note that the photographic evidence supports the tenant submission that the damage was more than likely caused by her child/ren. As she accepted, the responsibility remains with her. Blinds required replacement
- The tenant did not dispute that the blinds had been damaged in two bedrooms. The replacement cost as invoiced was $689.99 (being $$432.08 and $266.91 respectively. The age of the blinds was unknown, but the entry photos suggest they were in reasonable and working condition. I must factor in the age and life expectancy of such fixtures and having done this I award $500.00 towards the replacement cost incurred. Given the economic life of blinds is seven years and the uncertain age of the blinds, this limited depreciation reflects the evidenced good condition of the blinds at commencement. Walls marked/drawings
- The walls evidenced in the photos prove some markings or drawing on areas during the tenancy. The premises at entry appeared dated in areas. The entry photos suggest some prior wear and tear of the wall finish, reflecting the likely time that has lapsed since last the painting. The landlord claimed $724.66 but the basis of this was not specified. What was provided was an invoice for 60 litres of paint for a sum of $1,650.00 from a painting contractor. Such a volume suggests a full repaint. There were no labour or material costs itemised.
- I would summarise the wall finish as dated but in overall good condition. There was clearly damage to the wall finish but there was also some consideration required of prior condition and wear and tear.
- Given the lack of effort and cost detail, and allowing for the age of the wall finish, I award $302.00 towards any related costs incurred by the landlord for repainting. Carpet badly stained with replacement required.
- The carpet was left in poor condition. The tenant accepted this and stated she had considered engaging a stain removal contractor. She did not and, based on the photos, I would suggest that was prudent as it is difficult to envisage any such attempt being successful.
- The landlord lodged an insurance claim. This was treated on a room-by-room basis. By assessing indemnity value the insurer found only the lounge and dining room replacement ($4,056.00) costs were more than the applicable excess. This area was carpeted some two years ago and I consider the excess to be the lower of any depreciated value and award the $1,250.00 as claimed.
- The remaining carpeted areas comprised four bedroom and the hallway. The age of this carpet was unknown but I am comfortable that the photos support a conclusion it was some years beyond the expected economic life of 8-12 years (the assessed life depending on the area being a low or high traffic area). Bluntly, it was old.
- That said, the extensive staining to the carpet will have been disappointing to the owner, the child/ren being the likely cause notwithstanding.
- The damage during the tenancy accelerated the carpet depreciation such that replacement was the only option. Having assessed and factored the condition and likely age, I have awarded the landlord $400.00 towards the carpet replacement cost incurred.
- The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damages awarded.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.