Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5347246 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 5 Cadness Street, Northcote, Auckland 0627
Decided 5 February 2026 · Published 5 February 2026 · Application 5347246
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Wairere Bradley must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $795.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Ms Gray, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 930, was called without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord said the tenancy ended on 15 July 2025.
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided a Final Inspection Report dated 16 July 2025 and an Entry Inspection Report dated 17 May 2024, both with numerous photographs of the condition of the property before and after the tenancy.
- The landlord initially claimed $246.32 for rubbish removal but after reviewing the photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy, the landlord indicated there was a bed and base to be removed, as well as a few other rubbish items but it was not extensive. As such, the landlord reduced their claim to $50.00 to remove these items, as shown in the photographs in the Final Inspection Report.
- Given the photographs provided, I find the landlord’s claim for $50.00 to be reasonable and so award the landlord $50.00 to remove some rubbish left at the end of the tenancy.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related 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 (or market 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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Door and latch replacement a. A door and its latch had to be replaced as there was a hole in the door that could not be repaired. The landlord provided photographs of the hole in the door with a latch. Given the photographs provided, I accept the door had to be replaced and the door latch also had to be replaced. b. Given the evidence provided, I find this is likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost less any deprecation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord claimed $304.86 to replace the door and door latch, which I find is a reasonable cost, given the evidence provided, before considering depreciation. d. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. e. The landlord said this property was a brand-new home immediately before the tenant moved in on 18 June 2024, so was only 1.5 years old. f. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of interior doors in a rental property is around 20 years. As such, I deduct the $304.86 cost I find reasonable to replace the door and its latch by 7.5% for depreciation to an award of $282.00 to replace the door and its latch. Holes in the walls g. The landlord said the tenant had caused a number of significant holes in walls throughout the property also, in the kitchen, living room, bedroom 1 and the dining room. The landlord pointed to a number of photographs in their Final Inspection Report showing all these holes, most of which were of quite a substantial size and/or depth. There were around 9 holes in total. h. The landlord claimed a total of $584.60 to plaster, patch and stop all the holes, being costs for this of $70.81 in the kitchen, $200.58 for this in the living room, $239.36 in bedroom 1 and $73.85 for this in the dining room. i. Given the evidence provided, particularly the detailed photographs of the holes, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. j. The landlord has not claimed for any painting cost, only for plastering, patching and stopping the holes. As there is no paint cost claimed, I do not consider depreciation and so award the landlord $584.60, which I find is a reasonable cost given the photographs provided of the significant number and size of the holes in the walls throughout the property, to repair the holes in the walls at the end of the tenancy. k. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.