Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5493890 — Property damage at 39B Tonga Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330
Decided 1 Jul 2026 · Published 1 Jul 2026 · Application 5493890
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Tremain Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Akasni Kumar And [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s]o $13,277.33 immediately, calculated as follows: ItemAmount Carpet replacement$3,000.00 Painting contribution$6,800.00 Curtain replacement$1,650.00 Cleaning$949.33 Rubbish removal, minor materials, dump fees, travel, section clean-up and related end-of-tenancy work $780.00 Toilet seat/minor repair$70.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total$13,277.33
- Bond Services to pay the full bond to Tremain Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Akasni Kumar And [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s]o 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.
- The tenant has applied for refund of her full bond.
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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s evidence included invoices and photographs.
- The landlord claims compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, removal of items from the section, under the porch, in the sheds and on top of the shed, dump fees, travel, replacement light shades, and black soil to fill dog holes. The landlord says this work was required because of the tenant’s failure to meet her end-of-tenancy obligations.
- The Tenant said the rubbish under the porch had been there before her tenancy, and the only things she had put under there were timber lengths from a deconstructed washing line and a table, both of which belonged to the Landlord.
- The primary obstacle here is that I do not have any photo evidence of the rubbish removed from under the porch. It would have been enough to take a photo.
- The tenant says her dog(s) made the holes in the yard, but she filled them in with dirt which was washed away in a cyclone. I accept her explanation but do not accept this absolves her of liability for the holes.
- I award $780.00 for the invoice covering rubbish removal, minor end-of-tenancy remedial work, materials, dump fees and travel. The remedial work included repair of a bench top – namely, reinstallation of formica strips on the edge of the bench top - which is damage in accordance with the principles below, and not fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted her children had pulled them off, and that they came away over time and she did not tell the Landlord when it started happening. This damage could have been avoided with more care.
- I award $949.33 for cleaning. This was supported by photo evidence for internal exit cleaning, window cleaning and extra cleaning, together with the invoice from the contractor who completed the cleaning work. I have not allowed any separate amount for ceiling cleaning where that work was effectively overtaken by the painting claim – see below.
- The tenant removed or replaced curtains during the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that curtains and blinds were in good condition at the start of the tenancy and that the curtains left at the end of the tenancy were not equivalent replacements. The tenant accepted some responsibility for the blinds, but not the curtains. She claimed the curtain she removed were mouldy, but again, she had not advised the landlord of her concerns around dampness and mould or the need to replace the curtain. The landlord’s replacement cost was proved at $2,277.00, and I award $1,650.00 considering betterment.
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. 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. 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 carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence was that there were three areas of damage and a very strong smell, from animal urine and/or faeces requiring replacement of the carpet throughout the whole home. I do not have independent evidence as to how widespread the issue was and whether, objectively viewed, all the carpet required replacement and could not be salvaged.
- The tenant kept two dogs at the property. She said she would keep them in the lounge when it was cold. Initially she said they did not go elsewhere in the house and then she later acknowledged they had been into the children’s bedrooms sometimes. She also acknowledged she would not have been watching them all the time, though she thought they would never urinate or defecate inside the home.
- The property manager had found brown spots on the carpet and considered that these were evidence of dog, or even human, faeces. I accept that the smell and condition of the carpet went beyond fair wear and tear. Cleaning was not sufficient to remedy it. The landlord proved a replacement cost of $4,750.00. I award $3,000.00, allowing for betterment and depreciation. I consider the carpets were approximately three years old at the start of the tenancy, because the home was purchased in 2018/2019.
- The tenant decided to paint the walls in the home, without consulting the landlord. The tenant said she wanted to make the home better for her children. The tenant’s mother said the children had been rough and the tenant wanted to put things right. That is certainly a responsible attitude from the tenant, which is to be commended. However, the walls and ceilings were clearly worse off after the tenant’s painting attempt than prior to her tenancy.
- The painting damage was extensive. The photographs and evidence show damage and marking beyond fair wear and tear. I award $6,800.00. I have considered betterment when arriving at this amount.
- I award $70.00 for the toilet seat/minor repair.
- The tenant’s application for refund of the full bond is dismissed. The landlord has proved claims exceeding the bond, so the bond is to be paid to the landlord and credited against the amount owing. Because the Landlord has substantially succeeded, I reimburse their filing fee: $28.00.