Tenant Held Liable for Oven Hob and Carpet Damage
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was responsible for the cracked oven hob and stained carpet, considering these damages exceeded normal wear and tear. The Tribunal awarded the landlord the cost of repairs minus the bond.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages to the premises that occur during the tenancy and exceed fair wear and tear.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal found the tenant liable for damages to the oven hob and carpet.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Rotorua ruled that the tenant was liable for damages to the oven hob and carpet, finding the damage exceeded fair wear and tear and was the tenant's responsibility under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196193 1
[2025] NZTT 5196193, 5177011
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT ROTORUA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay $68.00 to [COMPANY] immediately.
Description Landlord Gas hob assessment and repair $498.04 Insurance excesses for carpet damage $2,070.00 Total award $2,568.04 Minus Bond $2,250.00 Tenant to pay $68.00
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $2,250.00 immediately.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. 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?
3. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196193 2
damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
a. Damage to oven hob: The Landlord stated the glass surface of the oven hob was cracked and required replacement. The Tenant said a small crack appeared over a year ago after a pot was dropped, and it worsened due to the Landlord’s inaction despite requests for repair. The Landlord provided inspection photos from under six months ago showing no visible damage, though the corner in question was not captured. Other photos demonstrate the property manager's attention to detail. I am satisfied that had the Tenant reported the crack, or had one been present, it would have been noted and addressed during the last inspection, and observable in that particular photograph. I find the Tenant more likely than not damaged the oven top. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage is careless, and I award $498.04 for assessment of the damage and replacement of the hob.
b. Carpet damaged (3x insurance excesses @ $550, and 1x insurance excess at $420.00): The Landlord claims extensive carpet staining in four rooms, especially the lounge, including vibrant drink stains, and a sticky substance
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196193 3
resembling chewing gum, and possible hair dye, in the bedrooms, which also have general staining. The Tenant accepts responsibility for the stains but felt four insurance excesses was excessive.
The Landlord’s insurance covered replacement but required four excess payments totalling $2,070.00. While the Tribunal generally assesses damage per event, the extent and variety of staining make it impractical to isolate specific incidents. Given the carpet was new at the tenancy’s start and the Landlord reasonably anticipated a large household, I find the damage careless and accept the Landlord’s loss as the four insurance excesses, and nothing more than this amount
10. 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.
[NAME]
03 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196193 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5196193 5
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 damage to the oven hob was more than fair wear and tear, making the tenant liable.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the carpet stains.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's argument that the oven hob crack worsened due to the landlord's inaction was not accepted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was held liable for the cracked oven hob and stained carpet, with the landlord awarded the cost of repairs minus the bond.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was responsible for the cracked oven hob and stained carpet, which the landlord claimed were beyond normal wear and tear.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided the tenant was liable because the damage exceeded fair wear and tear, and the tenant failed to prove otherwise.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 49B, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was proving that the damage was not due to fair wear and tear and was the tenant's responsibility.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure any damage to the premises is reported and repaired promptly to avoid liability.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photos of the oven hob and carpet stains were crucial evidence in the decision.