Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394362 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 2 Rimu Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400
Published 13 March 2026 · Application 5394362
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Matamata
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Young
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,198.00
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$183.79
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,014.21
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replacement carpet | $1,170.00 | Replacement carpet | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,014.21 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,014.21 |
Claims and awards for application 5394362 — net $1,014.21 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Replacement carpet
- Amount
- $1,170.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement carpet
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,014.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,014.21
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Meet Thakkar must pay Todd David Chalmers $1,014.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $183.79 (BN-17211073) to Todd David Chalmers immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the remote hearing.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 10 December 2025. The day before the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment on the grounds that he had work commitments. The application for an adjournment was dismissed. The tenant had sufficient time to make alternative arrangements. The Tribunal is required to deal with matters expeditiously (s.85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986) (“RTA”).
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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. The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The excess on each and every claim under the landlord’s policy of insurance is $3,850.00.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet in the lounge was stained. The landlord attempted to have the stains removed by a commercial cleaner. The stains could not be removed. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for replacement carpet. The replacement cost is $1,950.43.
- The tenant provided some documentary evidence to suggest that the stains had been present at the commencement of the tenancy. The photograph provided by the tenant, which the tenant suggests was taken at the commencement of the tenancy, is identical in all respects to a photograph taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a copy of an end of tenancy inspection report for the previous tenant. There is no reference to any stain in that report. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The carpet was four years old and the landlord said that but for the stains, was in good condition. When betterment and depreciation are taken into account, I consider that compensation of $1,170.00 is to be paid by the tenant.
- As Todd David Chalmers has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394362?
The tribunal order states: Meet Thakkar must pay Todd David Chalmers $1,014.21 immediately, calculated
How much money was awarded in case 5394362?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,170.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394362?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394362?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13283296-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.