Claimant Wins Fair Wear and Tear Case Against Landlord
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal decided that the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear, not the tenant's responsibility. The landlord argued that the tenant was responsible for damaging the carpets, but the Tribunal disagreed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not responsible for damage that is fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including paying rent, keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, notifying the landlord of damage or repair needs, and leaving the premises clean and tidy when moving out.
This section states that a tenant is responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property if those actions would have broken the tenancy agreement had the tenant done them. If someone intentionally or carelessly damages the property while the tenant is there, it's assumed the tenant allowed that person to be there.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully argued that the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear, not the tenant's responsibility. The landlord claimed the tenant was responsible for carelessly damaging the carpets during the tenancy, but the Tribunal found that the damage was consistent with fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 1
[2025] NZTT 5072934, 5078088
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Waitakere | Waitākere
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] must pay [NAME] and [NAME] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $27.00 Bond $3,680.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $27.00
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6508871-001) to [NAME] and [NAME] immediately.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. [NAME] and [NAME] attended on behalf of the tenant.
2. The tenant filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
3. The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee.
4. Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.’ Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
5. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:
…[L]ike anyone who brings an application before the Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
6. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
DAMAGE
The law
7. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 3
8. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant.1
9. In [NAME] v [NAME] DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held:
Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
10. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for carelessly damaging the carpets in the bedrooms.
11. The tenant accepts that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy but claims it is fair wear and tear.
12. It is important to note that even though the tenant claims the damage is fair wear and tear, the tenant does not have to prove that this is the case. The onus of proving that the damage is not fair wear and tear rests with the landlord.2 The landlord must first establish that this is the case before the Tribunal can consider whether the damage is careless or intentional.
Evidence and submissions of the parties
13. This tenancy began on 24 October 2023 and ended on 24 October 2024.
14. The landlord gave evidence that the property was newly built before the tenants moved in and the carpet was only 1 year old at the end of the tenancy.
15. The landlord claims the tenants each had rolling office chairs in their bedrooms, which caused the carpet to essentially flatten permanently.
16. The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in the bedrooms. A slight change in colour in some parts of the carpet is visible. This discolouration appears in a circular shape. The landlord claims this is where the carpet is permanently flattened as a result of the office chairs.
17. No photographs of the chairs were submitted however, the landlord likened the chairs to those present in the hearing room.
18. The landlord submitted an email from [NAME], Retail Sales Manager at [NAME]. The email is lengthy, but relevantly states:
1 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 2 Nixon v Geal-Olter (216/94 North Shore District Court December 1995).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 4
Observed Damage and Causes:
Permanent Fiber Compression and Flattening: The use of heavy- duty rolling office chairs has resulted in continuous compression and friction against the carpet fibres. Office chairs with wheels concentrate weight in specific areas of the carpet, causing the fibres to flatten and lose their original resilience. This concentrated, repetitive weight combined with rolling friction has created deep indentations and visible wear, which cannot be reversed by cleaning or regular maintenance.
19. The email goes on to conclude that the damage is “consistent with excessive wear and tear caused by heavy-duty office chair use on carpeted surfaces without protective mats.” I pause here to note that this is not a conclusion [NAME] is qualified to make. Whether damage is the result of fair wear and tear or whether a tenant’s use of the premises has been reasonable is a legal question. The answer may be informed by a range of evidence, including expert evidence, but the analysis leading to the conclusion is a legal one.
20. The landlord claims they first noticed damage to the carpet during the first inspection, which occurred sometime in January 2024. The landlord states they told the tenant to use protective mats under the chairs during this inspection to stop any further damage. The landlord accepts that the tenants were using protective mats by the time of the second inspection in June 2024, but claims the damage had already been done by this point.
21. The landlord submits that the tenant’s failure to use protective mats from the beginning of the tenancy renders their use of the chairs in the bedrooms unreasonable.
22. The landlord submitted a quote to replace the carpet throughout the property for $3,878.00 (including GST). The landlord gave evidence that the carpet has been replaced for this amount. The landlord never received an invoice and claims that they paid out on the quote.
23. The tenant accepts that the carpet has flattened due to the use of office chairs in the bedrooms.
24. The tenant gave evidence that they began using protective mats under the chairs approximately five months into the tenancy. This was shortly after the first inspection when the request was made by the landlord.
25. The tenant gave evidence that three of them work away from the tenancy address and one works from home some days of the week.
26. The tenant gave evidence that they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $605.00. This was done to try to restore the structure of the carpet to its original condition, but did not work as well as they hoped.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 5
27. The tenant claims that the carpet was not showing signs of damage at the first inspection in January 2024 and the landlord requested that they get protective mats because damage was “likely to occur” if they did not.
Analysis
28. It is clear that the landlord prides themselves on being a good landlord who looks after the property and their tenants. They do not consider the property to simply be an investment. They are proud of it and care about the way it is presented to tenants. The landlord wanted the home to be aesthetically pleasing for future tenants, which is why they replaced the carpet. This is commendable and something the landlord should be proud. It remains the case however, that a tenant is not responsible for damage that is fair wear and tear, which I consider is the case here.
29. The damage to the carpet, as shown in the photographs, is not obvious or particularly significant. I cannot see the alleged damage in some of the photographs. This factor alone is not determinative, but it is something I can consider in the round.
30. The landlord accepts that the use of desks and chairs in residential bedrooms is most likely commonplace these days. I agree. We live in a technologically advanced time. It is hard to get by without a computer and it is not uncommon for people to work from home some days of the week. Relaxing by playing video games or watching television on a computer are also common past times. This all indicates that the tenant’s use of the premises by having a chair in their bedroom was reasonable.
31. I do not consider the fact that the tenant had office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats for the first 5 months of the tenancy renders their use of the premises unreasonable. Office chairs are widely available and easily purchased from a number of stores. They are often advertised as being suitable for the home and office. Although the email from [NAME] refers to “heavy duty office chairs,” the evidence given at the hearing was that the chairs were like the ones in the hearing room. That is, they were standard office chairs.
32. The landlord submits that a tenant who uses an office chair in their bedroom should know to use a protective mat. Whilst it might be common knowledge for this landlord that repetitive use of a rolling office chair might permanently flatten residential carpet, I do not consider this is common knowledge amongst the general public. Once requested to use protective mats by the landlord, the tenant did.
33. For the above reasons, I find the tenant’s use of the premises by having rolling office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats to be reasonable. The
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 6
flattening of the new carpet is a consequence of the ordinary operation of natural forces. The damage is fair wear and tear.
BOND
34. The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord’s claim against the bond is dismissed. Therefore, I order the bond to be dispersed to the tenant in full.
FILING FEE
35. The tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME]
26 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 7
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072934 8
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's use of office chairs in bedrooms was considered reasonable, indicating normal use of the premises.
- The damage to the carpet was not obvious or particularly significant in the photographs provided.
- The tenant began using protective mats shortly after the landlord requested it, which was approximately five months into the tenancy.
- The flattening of the carpet was deemed a consequence of ordinary natural forces, not unreasonable tenant action.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim that the tenant should have known to use a protective mat for office chairs was not accepted as common knowledge.
- The email from the retail sales manager was not accepted as a qualified legal conclusion on whether damage was fair wear and tear.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear, not the tenant's responsibility.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear or if the tenant was responsible for the damage.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the damage was fair wear and tear because the landlord did not prove that the damage was not fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a) and 41 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the damage to the carpet was fair wear and tear or if the tenant was responsible for the damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
This means that a tenant is not responsible for damage that is fair wear and tear, unless the landlord proves otherwise.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the carpet and an email from the landlord were considered important evidence.