Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5447971 — Property damage
Decided 2 Jul 2026 · Published 2 Jul 2026 · Application 5447971
- 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 parties name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The background to this tenancy is that the tenants, of retirement age, had rented this property for four years and treated it as their own. They are extremely upset to have this application before the Tenancy Tribunal given the excellent tenants they were and the way they treated the property as their own and were very house proud. The photos of the property were used for the sale advertisements whilst the tenants were in occupation, there were cooperative in relation to the marketing of the property.
- The property manager accepted they were excellent tenants, and kept the property immaculate, wishing all their tenants were as good however require the property to be returned to the condition it was in at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The costs sought are in relation to the repainting of the walls, due to small nail and screw holes as a result of art and pictures being hung, a carpet stain and floor repairs due to the lounge suit.
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.
- I shall deal with each of the claims separately.
- Firstly, the claim in relation to the stain. The tenant claims that the cat had vomited and was subsequently found to be so unwell it needed to be put down.
- The tenant did all he could to remedy the stain. This included returning to the property to concentrate on the area that he says was lifted when he exited. He said the photos supplied were before he returned.
- I am not satisfied on the evidence that this claim is proven. There is arguably more recent photos available and further the cat having had such an accident was a one off and is not, in my view, a result of the tenants being careless or that the damage is intentional.
- I therefore on the balance of probabilities dismiss the claim. Of note the insurance excess was above the amount to remedy.
- The second claim is in relation to the damage to flooring. I am told the flooring was approximately 2-3 years old at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The facts are that the furniture store delivered and put the lounge suit in place, that is where it remained for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant was unaware that the legs had a screw that subsequently caused an indentation to the flooring. The tenant attempted to fix this when it was noticed but was unsuccessful. The flooring was no longer available.
- The property manager sourced some of the boards and had it repaired at a cost of $768.56.
- The tenant claims that this could have been fixed far cheaper.
- I am required again, as outlined above, to be satisfied that the tenant caused such damage carelessly or by being negligent.
- The tenant had no knowledge of the screw and given the condition he kept the property I do not accept he should be liable as he was not careless nor negligent, I find on the evidence that this is an example of fair wear and tear.
- The final claim is for the repaint of the walls given the nail hole sand screw holes from hanging art and photos.
- I am told that the tenant had used the landlord’s painter to make remedy one of the main walls and it was significantly cheaper than the claim now made. The evidence is that the repaint was not the entire interior of the house.
- Again, the claim is for less than the costs of the insurance. There was agreement that there was consent to hang the pictures on the basis that the walls were returned to their original condition. There is no evidence of the age of the walls. The tenant was unable to remedy due to the property being sold and the need for it to be done with urgency.
- Whilst the tenant had attempted to repair some of the walls the remainder required remedy. Having considered all the evidence and submissions, I find that there is to be payment for the repaint and repair.
- 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.
- Given the excellent record of the tenants and the background and by consent I make a suppression order for the party’s names and address.