Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5396771 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 235 Wairau Road, Totara Vale, Auckland
Decided 20 March 2026 · Published 20 March 2026 · Application 5396771
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Emma French must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1785.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
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.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs were produced to me which show the premises to be filthy, in particular in the kitchen area.
- The amount incurred for cleaning was modest and reasonable. It is 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.
- 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.
- I am satisfied that all of the damage that has occurred in this case was intentional. A large part of the claim is for carpet removal. The tenant removed carpet from throughout the premises. Two doors were damaged beyond repair and there were holes. Some chattels were removed like the toilet roll holder and the extractor fan filters.
- The landlord explained that all items other than the doors had been depreciated significantly. Those should generally be expected to last for a very long time and not have to be replaced. I agree it is therefore not appropriate to depreciate them.
- I consider that all of the amounts claimed were modest and reasonable. The amounts ordered above are proven.