Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5137291 — Property damage at 52 Cameron Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810
Decided 9 May 2025 · Published 9 May 2025 · Application 5137291
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Smoke alarms
Order
- Lucy Karaitiana-Harmon must pay Carol Allison Gould and Earle Handcock $7,989.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. Heat pump pump remote control$130.00 Replacement doors$125.84 Repair to hole in bathroom wall lining$1,048.09 Carpet cleaning$287.50 Wall holes$1,500.00 Wall painting$1,750.00 Front door repair$63.94 Smoke alarm replacement$20.99 Skip bin$500.00 Rubbish removal$1,600.00 Curtain replacement$188.00 Curtain tracks$123.42 Down pipe replacement$1,408.60 Assorted hardware$140.34 Electrical fittings and bulbs$475.56 Filing fee$27.00 Minus Bond-$1,400.00 Total payable by tenant to landlord$7,989.28
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking various orders concerning repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy.
- Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.
BACKGROUND
- The tenancy commenced on 15 November 2018, the sole tenant is Lucy Karaitiana-Harmon. The landlords are Carol Gould and Earle Handcock. The tenancy ended on 22 October 2024.
- At the end of the tenancy, there was extensive damage to the premises, extensive cleaning was required, as well as significant rubbish removal. Those form the basis of the claim before me, and I will address them individually below.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Compensation for damage
- With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
- Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
- 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.
- 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 a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Missing Chattels
- The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
ANALYSIS
- The landlord has presented a range of claims, I will consider those in turn. Claim 1 - Heat pump pump remote control
- The landlord states a heat pump remote was provided at the start of the tenancy and missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks the replacement costs. Analysis
- As above, the tenant must return all chattels, or other items provided to the tenant, when the tenancy ends. I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the heat pump remote, so she must be liable for the replacement cost. Claim 2 - Replacement doors
- The landlord states that most doors in the premises had holes in them but they could be repaired. Two of the doors could not be repaired, and the landlord seeks compensation for the actual replacement cost for two internal doors being $125.84 Analysis
- The initial obligation is on the landlord to establish that damage occurred during the tenancy, and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The photographs show very extensive damage throughout the property, including broken doors. I am entirely satisfied that damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear.
- The onus then shifts to the tenant, to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. The tenant has not established that, so she is liable for the repair costs. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Repair to hole in bathroom wall lining
- The landlord states that the wall lining in the bathroom (Seratone) was replaced during the tenancy, but at the end of the tenancy there was a hole in the lining, so the panel needed to be replaced. The cost for the replacement was $1,048.09. Analysis
- I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The photograph shows a hole involving two panels of Seratone (or similar) above the bath. I accept the repair would require the replacement of both panels. The tenant has not proven that the damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is established so is ordered in full. Claim 4 - Carpet cleaning
- The landlord states the carpet was very soiled at the end of the tenancy, so commercial carpet cleaning was needed at the cost of $287.50. Analysis
- The tenant must return the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy. In the case of the carpet, the photographs support that the carpet was very dirty, and extensively stained. The landlord’s decision to have the carpet commercially cleaned is unsurprising. I find the tenant must be liable for the carpet, cleaning cost, as it was a cost incurred to return the premises to a standard of being reasonably clean. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 5 – Wall holes
- The landlord claims repair costs for holes in the walls, of which there were large holes in all rooms. The work needed to repair those holes was significant, at a cost of $1,500.00. Analysis
- The photographs confirm multiple holes in walls throughout the dwelling. The landlord advised that the repairs required whole sheets of plasterboard to be replaced. Given the extent of the damage which I accept occurred during the tenancy, I consider the cost for the repair is proportionate. The tenant has not established that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so I find she is liable for the repair cost. Claim 6 – Wall painting
- The landlord has claimed costs for repainting the premises. The premises needed to repainted given the extent of the repairs to the wall holes, and also to address children’s graffiti on walls. The landlord states the premises were freshly painted at the start of the tenancy. The total cost for the repainting was $3,500.00. Analysis
- The landlord has undertaken extensive repairs to the plasterboard wall holes which needed to be painted, and, in addition to that, there was extensive graffiti, most likely from children, throughout the premises. I accept that the only option available to the landlord was to fully repaint the premises.
- The damage occurred during the tenancy, it was not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven that it was anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the cost of the repair.
- As I noted to the landlord, at the hearing, I must apply some measure of depreciation, given the years that have passed since the premises were last painted. On balance, I consider it reasonable to order the tenant to pay half of the repainting cost, that is $1,750.00. Claim 7 – Front door repair
- The landlord states that the front door had been forced, and repairs were needed to the door jamb. The cost for the materials was $63.94 for the repair. Analysis
- I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional, so she must be liable for the repair. Claim 8 – Smoke alarm replacement
- The landlord states that the smoke alarms were missing, having been provided at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost was $20.99. Analysis
- I accept the smoke alarms were provided by the landlord, and not returned by the tenant. The tenant is liable for the replacement cost, this is ordered in full. Claim 9 – Skip bin
- The landlord seeks the cost of a skip bin to address the rubbish left by the tenant. The bin cost was $500.00. Analysis
- The photographs show extensive rubbish on the premises when the premises were returned to the landlord. The tenant is liable for the rubbish, removal costs, including the skip bin. Claim 10 – Rubbish removal
- The landlord claims $1,600.00 for rubbish removal including for items that would not fit in the bin, and includes the tip fees. Analysis
- As above, there was extensive rubbish left on the premises, as well as on the grounds. The tenant is responsible for any costs incurred by the landlord in removing that rubbish, including time and tip fees. The claim is proportionate to the work that would have been required, and it is ordered in full. Claim 11 – Curtain replacement
- The landlord claims curtain replacement costs of $188.00, which relates to the cost of replacing four curtains that were missing at the end of the tenancy, and new at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
- Again, the tenant is liable for the cost to replace any chattels that were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I accept that four curtains were missing as advised by the landlord, and so the tenant must be responsible for the replacement costs. Claim 12 – Curtain track replacement
- The landlord states that four curtain tracks were missing at the end of the tenancy, at a cost of $123.42. Analysis
- For the above reasons, the tenant is responsible for the replacement cost for items, not returned, including four curtain tracks. This is ordered in full. Claim 13 – Downpipe replacement
- The premises are two-story, and two of the downpipes were broken at chest height, and needed to be replaced. The cost for the repair was $1,408.60. Analysis
- I accept the downpipes were broken during the tenancy. It would be unlikely that the downpipes broke as a result of fair wear and tear, meaning that the tenant must prove that the damage was not careless or intentional, and she has not done so. The end result is that the tenant will be liable for the replacement costs. I note in relation to this claim, that the most likely situation is that the damage was intentional, so the tenant is responsible for the full replacement cost. Claim 14 – Assorted hardware
- The landlord has claimed for the replacement cost of assorted hardware to the sum of $140.34, such as for example casement stays that had been snapped by the tenant. The landlord states that when they went to undertake repairs, the hardware was either broken or missing hence needing replacement. Analysis
- This claim relates to a range of smaller items that the landlord needed to replace. Given they are lower value, they have not been quantified individually, but would be consistent with the overall appearance of a tenancy that has been widely damaged by the tenant, or people at the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The tenant has not disputed liability, and on balance, I find this claim is established. Claim 15 – Electrical fittings
- The landlord claims $475.56 for damage to assorted light and electrical fittings. Analysis
- I am satisfied that the electrical fittings were damaged during the tenancy, and the damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the repair costs. Claim 16 – Filing fee
- The landlord claims the filing fee paid to commence these proceedings. Analysis
- Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.