Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5449217 — Property damage
Decided 22 Jun 2026 · Published 22 Jun 2026 · Application 5449217
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Smoke alarms
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.
- Sarah Marcia Woollaston must pay [landlord] $13,447.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to [ landlord] immediately.
Reasons
- [ Landlord] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
- The tenancy commenced on 02 August 2024, and was for a fixed term ending 01 August 2025, following which it became periodic. On 15 January 2026, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for recidivist rent arrears effective 29 January 2026.
- On 02 March 2026, the landlord filed a claim as follows. i. Failure to leave the property reasonably clean, ii. Failure to remove all rubbish, iii. Failure to return the lawns in a reasonable condition, iv. Failure to return a garage remote, v. Reimbursement of bailiff’s eviction fee, vi. Damage to: a. Exterior garage cladding b. Exterior drainage cover c. Telephone junction box. d. Garage roller door. e. Carpet f. Walls g. Bench top h. Curtains vii. Removal of smoke alarms viii. Claim for 4 weeks lost rent.
- The landlord seeks compensation and exemplary damages for the removal of smoke alarms and for keeping a pet at the property. Exemplary damages may be awarded for removing smoke alarms but not for keeping a cat without consent. Compensation for loss or damage may still be sought. Cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn maintenance, and failing to return a garage remote.
- The landlord claims $630.00 for general cleaning, $632.50 for carpet and wall cleaning, $1,352.92 for rubbish removal, and $322.00 to replace the garage remote.
- The property was built in 2010, has four bedrooms, a bathroom, an additional toilet, a kitchen, an open plan dining / lounge, and a single internal garage which houses the laundry.
- The landlord has provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, completed by both parties dated 02 August 2024.
- The landlord has provided videos and photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The landlord has produced invoices.
- The landlord states that carpet cleaning was completed, but was unable to remove soiling, staining, and urine odour. The landlord stated that during the tenancy, they discovered that the tenant was keeping two cats at the property. The tenant had not sought the landlord’s consent. On 18 November 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice and believed that the cats had been removed; however, at the end of the tenancy, they discovered stains and faeces on the carpet, indicating the tenant had not done so.
- The landlord stated that the contractor who cleaned the carpet also attempted to remove marks and writing / drawings from the walls.
- One of the items left by the tenant was an upright piano. The landlord attempted to assist the tenant in selling the piano but were told by a prospective purchaser that it could not be tuned and had no value. The rubbish removal claim includes moving and disposing of the piano. Law
- 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) of the Residential Act 1986 (Act).
- The provision does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition.
- The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs. Analysis and decision
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish, more likely than not, that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act.
- In reaching my decision, I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
- Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish. It appears that no cleaning has been completed. Considering the circumstances in which the tenancy ended, this is not surprising. There are soiling and stains throughout the carpet. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant did not return one of the two garage remotes. The amounts claimed are reasonable in the circumstances and awarded in full. Damage
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage throughout the property, which is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused carelessly.
- The landlord provided photographs and a video taken at the commencement and the end of the tenancy showing the interior and exterior.
- The landlord has provided a pre-tenancy checklist completed by both parties. The property had been freshly painted with new carpets at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord states that the exterior garage cladding has damage consistent with vehicle doors being repeatedly opened onto it. The landlord has provided a photograph of the damage and a photograph showing the area at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord has provided a photograph of a drainage pipe located next to the house. The pipe has a grate which is set above the ground so that it can be mowed around without causing damage. The photograph shows that the lip holding the grate in place is broken. The landlord has provided a photograph of the drain undamaged at the commencement of the property. The landlord states that the damage has likely occurred while mowing the lawn around the grate and is the result of carelessness.
- The landlord has provided a photograph of a landline telephone junction box located on the side of the house. The photograph shows that the cover has been removed and the wires pulled out.
- The landlord stated that during the tenancy, they discovered that stones had been placed in the tracks of the garage roller door, causing damage.
- The landlord stated that carpet cleaning did not remove all of the stains, but more importantly, could not remove the odour. The landlord provided a quote from a carpet specialist confirming that the stains could not be removed and noting the odour, suggesting that replacement was the only option.
- The end of tenancy video shows damage to walls throughout the property, including writing. The steam cleaning of the walls could not remove the writing. The damage consists of holes, scratches, and chips. Although none can be described as serious individually, it is widespread. The contractor engaged by the landlord has noted that spot repairs would result in patchy walls and has recommended repainting the entire wall.
- The landlord provided a photograph of a stain on the bench top which they state was able to be successfully spot repaired.
- The curtains in the lounge have stains that could not be removed by cleaning. The curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord is claiming $1,736.50 to repair the exterior garage cladding, $517.50 to repair the exterior drainage cover, $575.00 to repair the telephone junction box, $ 460.00 to repair the garage roller door, $ 6,074.00 to replace the Carpet, $5,543.00 to repair walls, $100.00 to repair he bench top, and $482.00 to replace the lounge curtains. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must, to avoid liability, prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $750.00 per claim.
- 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) of the Act.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness, the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
- Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may result in the tenant being liable for any subsequent damage.
- The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is, a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, as well as their estimated useful life. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the majority of the damage to the exterior garage cladding has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is likely the result of carelessness. However, based on the pre tenancy video, I cannot rule out the possibility of some fair wear and tear. Taking this into account I reduce the amount claimed by 10% for betterment and award the landlord $1,562.85. Although the landlord has insurance for careless damage, the excess is $750.00 per event. The number of claimable events in this case would exceed the amount claimed.
- I am satisfied that the exterior drainage cover was damaged during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the damage is likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed is less than the insurance excess. I award $517.50.
- I am satisfied that the telephone junction box was damaged during the tenancy, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and likely intentional. The amount claimed is awarded.
- I am satisfied that the garage roller door was damaged during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Placing stones or other objects in the tracks is an intentional act that is likely to cause damage. I award the amount claimed.
- I am satisfied that the carpet has been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The landlord made an insurance claim, which was declined because the damage had more likely than not been caused by a pet. Carpet in residential rental properties has an expected lifespan of approximately 8 to 10 years. Considering betterment, I have reduced the amount claimed in proportion to the estimated remaining useful life span of the carpet. In this case the carpet was 18 months old at the end of the tenancy. I therefore reduce the amount claimed by 18% and award the landlord $4,992.41.
- I am satisfied that the damage to the walls has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the damage is the result of carelessness. Repairing only the damaged areas would have resulted in a patchy appearance, so the affected walls were repainted. In this case, there has been some betterment. I also note that the pre-tenancy inspection report records some minor damage in the lounge. I reduce the amount claimed by 20% and award the landlord $4,434.40.
- I am satisfied that the bench top was damaged during the tenancy. The amount claimed to repair the damage is reasonable and awarded in full.
- I am satisfied that the damage to the curtains occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy. Curtains in rental properties have an expected lifespan of approximately 8 years. At the end of the tenancy, the curtains were 18 months old. I reduce the amount claimed by 19% for betterment and award the landlord $391.63. Smoke alarms
- At the commencement of the tenancy there were smoke alarms in each of the bedrooms. At the end, the smoke alarm in one bedroom was found to have been removed. Law
- Under section 40(2) (ab) of the Act, the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire. This includes interfering with smoke alarms.
- Doing so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 may be awarded.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
- In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal shall consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award Analysis and decision
- The alarm has been removed from its bracket. I am satisfied that the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act relating to smoke alarms. Smoke alarms are essential for protecting people from death or serious injury and property from serious damage. It is in the public interest that parties meet their obligations. I award the landlord exemplary damages of $100.00. Other claims
- The tenant failed to vacate the property upon termination, and the landlord sought the assistance of the bailiff. The landlord is claiming the bailiff’s fee of $267.00. I am satisfied there is a loss flowing from the tenant’s breach, and I reimburse the fee.
- The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy they discovered road cones in the garage, which appeared to belong to a road construction company. The landlord returned them to the owner and is seeking $30.42 in travel costs. I am not awarding any further compensation beyond that already awarded for rubbish removal.
- The landlord is claiming lost rent for 4 weeks during which the repair work and carpet replacement were completed. Based on the nature and scope of the repairs I am satisfied that an award of one weeks’ lost rent is reasonable. Costs
- As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. See section 95A of the Act.