Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5426488 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 13, 7 Cecil Place, Waltham, Christchurch 8023
Published 15 April 2026 · Application 5426488
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Price
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $5,153.39
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $5,153.39
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $172.50 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Window repairs | $250.43 | Window repairs | |
| Repairs: plaster hole behind bedroom door | $84.94 | Repairs: plaster hole behind bedroom door | |
| Repairs: paint entire unit - graffiti and plastering cover- ups | $4,617.52 | Repairs: paint entire unit - graffiti and plastering cover- ups | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $5,153.39 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $5,153.39 |
Claims and awards for application 5426488 — net $5,153.39 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $172.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Window repairs
- Amount
- $250.43
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Repairs: plaster hole behind bedroom door
- Amount
- $84.94
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: plaster hole behind bedroom door
Repairs: paint entire unit - graffiti and plastering cover- ups
- Amount
- $4,617.52
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: paint entire unit - graffiti and plastering cover- ups
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $5,153.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $5,153.39
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jody Moerua must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $5,153.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Mr Waters, representing the landlord, attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord said the tenancy ended on 20 August 2025. Locks
- The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and so the locks had to be changed at a cost of $172.50, which was reduced from the full cost charged to the landlord. I find the amount claimed reasonable, given the evidence and so award the landlord $172.50 to change the locks at 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.
- 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: Bedroom window a. The window frame in a bedroom was bent out of shape and had to be replaced. The same bedroom window had to have its handle repired, as it was broken. The landlord provided photographs of the damage to this bedroom window, which showed it bent out of shape at the bottom of the window and showed a broken window handle. b. Given the evidence, I find this is likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord claimed $177.02 to replace the bedroom window frame and $103.50 to repair the broken window handle in the same window. I find these to be reasonable costs before considering depreciation for replacing the window frame. 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 the window frame was put in during the building of the unit in 2019 and likely had not been replaced since then. So, the window frame was about 6 years old at the end of the tenancy. f. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of an aluminium window frame, such as shown in the landlord’s photographs of the bedroom window, to be about 35 years. As such, I deduct the cost of $177.02 that I find reasonable to replace the bedroom window frame by 17% to an award of $146.93 to replace the bedroom window frame. I then add this cost of $146.93 to replace the window frame to the cost of repairing the bedroom window handle, of $103.50, which comes to $250.43 to repair the bedroom window. Hole in wall behind bedroom door g. The landlord said there was a hole in the wall behind the bedroom door which had to be plastered at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of this hole in the wall and damage and claimed $84.94 for plastering the hole only (it was not painted as part of this claim). Given the evidence, I find this was likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. h. Depreciation does not apply to this claim as the cost of plastering only is claimed here, not painting, in this claim. As such, I award the landlord the cost of $84.94 for repairing the hole in the wall that I find a reasonable cost, given the evidence. Painting the unit i. The landlord said the entire interior of the unit had to be repainted as there was extensive graffiti and extensive cover-up plastering done by the tenant, both of which made the walls and doors throughout the property worse. The landlord provided photographs showing the extensive graffiti and plastering cover-ups throughout every room in the unit, as well as the graffiti immediately outside in the balcony area of the unit (not open to the general complex, according to the landlord). Given the evidence provided, I find this is likely intentional damage on the tenant’s part, given the extensive graffiti and numbers of holes in the walls that were plastered up by 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 claimed $7,695.86 for painting the whole unit and provided an invoice in this amount. Given the evidence provided, and the extensiveness of the damage, I find this a reasonable cost before considering depreciation. k. The landlord said the unit was last fully painted immediately before the tenancy began in 2021. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painting walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $7,695.86 cost that I find reasonable for repainting the whole unit to cover all the tenant’s damage by 40% for depreciation to an award of $4,617.52 for repainting the whole unit.
- The damage, as found above, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
- Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has been successful with the claim I must 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
s4, s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- Otautahi Community Housing Trust (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5426488?
The tribunal order states: Jody Moerua must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $5,153.39
How much money was awarded in case 5426488?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.43 awarded to landlord; paint entire unit - graffiti and pla…: $4,617.52 awarded to landlord; Plaster Hole Behind Bedroom Door: $84.94 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426488?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426488?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13448761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.