Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5496383 — Property damage at 105A McLeod Street, Camberley, Hastings 4120
Decided 11 Sept 2026 · Published 11 Sept 2026 · Application 5496383
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $25,310.21 immediately, calculated as shown below.
Reasons
- The landlords attended the hearing. The tenants didn’t attend and neither could be reached by phone. Background
- This tenancy was considered by the Tribunal in an Order dated 30 March 2026 (“March Order”).
- The March Order: a. ended the tenancy immediately b. required that the tenants pay rent arrears of $1,725.00 and the filing fee of $28.00 from the bond; c. directed that the Bond Centre pay the landlord $1,753.00 and hold the balance of $497.00.
- At that point, the landlords indicated that significant compensation claims would be brought for damage and other costs.
- The March Order records: ”The landlords have estimated that the cost of repairing the damage to the premises will be between $15,000 and $25,000. Ms Edward believes it is likely to be less than that, but she agrees that the damage has been substantial. Both sides agree, for example, that the shower will need to be replaced entirely due to the damage.”
- The landlords were out of New Zealand for a family wedding when the premises were vacated. They had their builder Mr Rowland complete the final inspection. Mr Rowland gave evidence and described the extent of the damage he found. His evidence and the photographs provided by the landlord show very extensive damage to the property, much of it clearly intentional.
- The landlords brought several insurance claims in respect of the damage. Some were accepted, resulting in payment of an excess of $1,000.00 for each accepted claim. Others were not, primarily because the damage was assessed as malicious and outside the landlords’ insurance cover.
- For insurance purposes, the landlords had quotes prepared by Anjalo Construction which have been provided in evidence. In some instances, where the insurance claim ws not accepted, the landlords had repair work carried out by Mr Rowlands instead. The Claims
- The compensation claimed and the landlords’ notation of the events leading to them is set out in a spreadsheet provided by the landlord and reproduced here. Some of the event numbers are repeated, though relating to different events.
Are the tenants 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. 1
- 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. 2
- 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. 3 .
- 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 1 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 2 S. 49B(3)(a) RTA. 3 S. 49B(1) RTA person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 4
- The evidence given by the landlord and by Mr Rowland satisfies me that the damage listed in the schedule occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not attended the hearing to disprove their responsibility.
- The nature and extent of the damage is proved by photographs provided by the landlord. Each of the events that make up the claim is considered below. Event 1
- This relates to the extensive bathroom damage noted in the March Order and repairs to doors and architraves in the bedroom and dining room. The extent of that damage is proved by the end of tenancy photos provided. A copy of the Anjelos quote itemising the damage and the repair cost is appended as Schedule 1 to this Order.
- The insurance claim was declined based on the insurer’s assessment that the damage was malicious and not covered by the policy, leaving the landlords to meet the repair cost.
- I accept that the Anjelo’s quote is evidence of the likely ultimate cost to the landlords of having the repair work done, even though the landlords did not engage Angelos to do the work. That represents the loss for which they should be compensated. Events 2 and 3
- These claims relate to damage to a security gate and bedroom door. The damage is proved by the photo evidence. Claims were accepted by the insurer so the tenants’ liability is limited to the excess charged for each event. Events 4 and 5
- These claims relate to damage to two doors. The damage is proved by the photo evidence. Neither claim was accepted by the insurer due to the nature of the damage. Quotes for the repair cost were provided by Anjelos and Mr Rowland, proving the landlords’ loss for which they are entitled to be compensated. 4 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Event 5
- Exit photos show that the induction hob was broken during the tenancy. An insurance claim for the replacement cost was accepted by the insurer so the tenants’ liability is limited to the excess payable on that claim Event 6 (x2)
- The exit photos show the carpets throughout the premises to be badly stained. An insurance claim was made. The insurer required that attempts first be made to have the carpets cleaned. That was not successful and all the carpets needed to be replaced.
- In accepting the claims the insurer applied a separate excess requirement for the carpet replacement in each of 6 rooms, against a total replacement cost of $10,850.00. The landlord claims 50% of the total excesses paid to allow for depreciation for the existing carpets which is reasonable having regard to their age and condition.
- The claim for the carpet cleaning costs is declined. I am not satisfied that the landlord cannot recover that cost as part of the insurance claim, Event 7
- The landlords claim the cost of a call out to check the heat pump. The invoice from Air Con Electrical states that the dampener was found to be stuck and not seated properly. That seems more likely than not to be as a result of some dislodgment for which the tenants are responsible. The loss is proved by the invoice provided. Events 8 and 9
- Photos taken from the end of the tenancy and Mr Rowlands’ evidence of his observations at the final inspection prove that there was a large quantity of rubbish and material left at the premiss and the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in breach of the tenants’ obligations. 5 The landlord paid Mr Rowland to do the exterior clean up work and a cleaner to clean the interior. The cost is proved by the invoices provided 5 S.40(1)(e) RTA Event 10
- Exit photos show holes in walls throughout the premises that needed to be patched and painted, in addition to those covered by the Anjelos quote (Event 1)
- The landlords paid Mr Rowland to do that work. The cost is proved by the invoice provided. Event 11
- A cord to the fibre box was removed at had to be replaced. The replacement cost is proved by Mr Rowlands’ invoice. Event 12
- This relates to repair of a window broken during the tenancy and replaced by Mr Rowlands. The loss is proved by M Rowlands’ invoice. Event 13
- Exit photos show that damage was done to the lawns and gardens and a buxus hedge was destroyed. The repair work is being done by the landlords and is partially completed. $1,600.00 compensation is claimed.
- The compensation claimed includes the cost of replacement hedge plants, instant turf to be relayed over the lawn and the landlords’ time.
- Because the work is ongoing and the actual cost not proved, because the landlords are entitled only to reasonable reimbursement for their time in doing the work and because there is likely to be some improvement value in having new lawns laid, I assess 50% of the claimed amount as a reasonable by the tenants to the cost of that work. Event 14
- The tenants’ dog badly scratched the wooden French doors into the premises. They will need to be sanded and painted. The quoted cost is $1,2000.00. Photos show that apart from the damage caused by the tenants’ dog, the doors were in need of repainting so the repair work will result in a significant betterment for the landlord. I assess 40% of the total cost as appropriate compensation by the tenants for the part of the total coat attributable to repair of the scratches. Events 15, 16, 18 and 19
- A wardrobe shelving unit, bathroom mirror and frame, recycling bins, shower head and towel rail were removed from the premises. They were replaced by the landlord and replacement cost (apart from the recycling bins) is proved by the receipts provided.
- A 25% deduction from replacement cost is made to allow for depreciation of the replaced items. Event 17
- The exit photos show that the bath has deep scratches though the enamel surface. It will need to be resurfaced or replaced. The landlord claims the less cost for resurfacing, which is reasonable.
- Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s], and Kenneth Richard Janes have substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.