Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5159008 — Property damage at 813A Kaimaumau Road, Kaimaumau, RD 1, Awanui 0486
Decided 11 Jun 2025 · Published 11 Jun 2025 · Application 5159008
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Aneta Kiri Hunt-Brown and Wail'n Howard must pay Andre Douglas and Michaela Douglas $6,990.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The landlords attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend and were not able to be contacted on the numbers specified in the Notice of Hearing.
- At an earlier hearing, the Tribunal directed that because the application was filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy, personal service on the tenants should be attempted.
- A report confirms that personal service could not be completed.
- A very recent amendment to the RTA has modified s.91A so that in terms of s.91A(2)(e), service is sufficient, “....if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service.”
- This application was made within 2 years of the end of the tenancy and was served on the tenants to an e-mail address given as an address for service in the agreement. Accordingly, I consider it proper to hear the application today.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The bond has already been returned to the landlord.
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.
- Photographs proved by the landlords from the end of the tenancy show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord should be compensated for the commercial cleaning costs which are proved by the invoice provided.
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 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.
- On inspecting the premises at the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s discovered very significant damage had been done.
- The landlords’ evidence, which is supported by photographic evidence, is that: a. multiple windows had been smashed requiring replacement of the windows and also the separate window tints; b. there were holes in most wall surfaces and in joinery; c. 5 doors and some door hardware were damaged and needed replacing; d. curtains were removed; e. a coffee table, bunk set and concrete outside table provided with the tenancy were damaged to the point that replacement is necessary; f. the fridge was independently assessed as not working do to damage caused by a cockroach infestation;
- The landlords arranged for repair of the damage. I am satisfied they did so in a way that met their obligation under s.49 RTA to “....take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
- The amounts claimed for third party costs are proved by invoices provided, except for painting costs. I accept the landlords’ evidence that the plastering and painting was done on a cash basis which minimised the cost and therefore the claim against the tenants. Looking at the extent of the damage shown in the photos, I accept that claim is reasonable.
- The premises were new at the start of the tenancy so no allowance for depreciation of fixtures is appropriate. Loss caused by damage to the chattels provided with the tenancy is by way of evidence showing replacement cost for equivalent items. I have made a modest allowance for depreciation of those chattels.
- I have not allowed the claim for the landlords’’ time in assisting with the plastering work. That can be considered part of a landlord’s time administering the tenancy and is not corroborated in any way.
- After completing the repair work the landlords lodged an insurance claim. The insurer considered all of the damage claimed and agreed to cover the damage it assessed as not having been intentionally caused, as intentional damage is not covered by the policy. Allowance has been made for the insurance claim proceeds received by the landlord. Allowance has also been made for the bond having been paid to the landlord.
- Because Andre Douglas and Michaela Douglas have succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.