Tenant Ordered to Pay Damages and Cleaning Costs

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 1

[2025] NZTT 5137291

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MASTERTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WHAKAORIORI

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] and [NAME] $7,989.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Heat pump pump remote control $130.00 Replacement doors $125.84 Repair to hole in bathroom wall lining $1,048.09 Carpet cleaning $287.50 Wall holes $1,500.00 Wall painting $1,750.00 Front door repair $63.94 Smoke alarm replacement $20.99 Skip bin $500.00 Rubbish removal $1,600.00 Curtain replacement $188.00 Curtain tracks $123.42 Down pipe replacement $1,408.60 Assorted hardware $140.34 Electrical fittings and bulbs $475.56 Filing fee $27.00 Minus Bond -$1,400.00

Total payable by tenant to landlord $7,989.28

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 2

REASONS

1. The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking various orders concerning repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy.

2. Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

3. The tenancy commenced on 15 November 2018, the sole tenant is [NAME]. The landlords are [NAME] and [NAME]. The tenancy ended on 22 October 2024.

4. At the end of the tenancy, there was extensive damage to the premises, extensive cleaning was required, as well as significant rubbish removal. Those form the basis of the claim before me, and I will address them individually below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

5. The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

6. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

7. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

8. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

9. 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 a 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

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM94278.html?src=qs

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 3

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.

Compensation for damage

10.With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.

11.Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.

12.Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.

13.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.

14.Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Missing Chattels

15.The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.

ANALYSIS

16.The landlord has presented a range of claims, I will consider those in turn.

Claim 1 - Heat pump pump remote control

17.The landlord states a heat pump remote was provided at the start of the tenancy and missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks the replacement costs.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 4

Analysis

18. As above, the tenant must return all chattels, or other items provided to the tenant, when the tenancy ends. I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the heat pump remote, so she must be liable for the replacement cost.

Claim 2 - Replacement doors

19.The landlord states that most doors in the premises had holes in them but they could be repaired. Two of the doors could not be repaired, and the landlord seeks compensation for the actual replacement cost for two internal doors being $125.84

Analysis

20.The initial obligation is on the landlord to establish that damage occurred during the tenancy, and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The photographs show very extensive damage throughout the property, including broken doors. I am entirely satisfied that damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear.

21.The onus then shifts to the tenant, to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. The tenant has not established that, so she is liable for the repair costs. This claim is ordered in full.

Claim 3 - Repair to hole in bathroom wall lining

22.The landlord states that the wall lining in the bathroom (Seratone) was replaced during the tenancy, but at the end of the tenancy there was a hole in the lining, so the panel needed to be replaced. The cost for the replacement was $1,048.09.

Analysis

23. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The photograph shows a hole involving two panels of Seratone (or similar) above the bath. I accept the repair would require the replacement of both panels. The tenant has not proven that the damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is established so is ordered in full.

Claim 4 - Carpet cleaning

24.The landlord states the carpet was very soiled at the end of the tenancy, so commercial carpet cleaning was needed at the cost of $287.50.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 5

Analysis

25.The tenant must return the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy. In the case of the carpet, the photographs support that the carpet was very dirty, and extensively stained. The landlord’s decision to have the carpet commercially cleaned is unsurprising. I find the tenant must be liable for the carpet, cleaning cost, as it was a cost incurred to return the premises to a standard of being reasonably clean. This claim is ordered in full.

Claim 5 – Wall holes

26.The landlord claims repair costs for holes in the walls, of which there were large holes in all rooms. The work needed to repair those holes was significant, at a cost of $1,500.00.

Analysis

27.The photographs confirm multiple holes in walls throughout the dwelling. The landlord advised that the repairs required whole sheets of plasterboard to be replaced. Given the extent of the damage which I accept occurred during the tenancy, I consider the cost for the repair is proportionate. The tenant has not established that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so I find she is liable for the repair cost.

Claim 6 – Wall painting

28.The landlord has claimed costs for repainting the premises. The premises needed to repainted given the extent of the repairs to the wall holes, and also to address children’s graffiti on walls. The landlord states the premises were freshly painted at the start of the tenancy. The total cost for the repainting was $3,500.00.

Analysis

29.The landlord has undertaken extensive repairs to the plasterboard wall holes which needed to be painted, and, in addition to that, there was extensive graffiti, most likely from children, throughout the premises. I accept that the only option available to the landlord was to fully repaint the premises.

30.The damage occurred during the tenancy, it was not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven that it was anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the cost of the repair.

31.As I noted to the landlord, at the hearing, I must apply some measure of depreciation, given the years that have passed since the premises were last

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 6

painted. On balance, I consider it reasonable to order the tenant to pay half of the repainting cost, that is $1,750.00.

Claim 7 – Front door repair

32.The landlord states that the front door had been forced, and repairs were needed to the door jamb. The cost for the materials was $63.94 for the repair.

Analysis

33. I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional, so she must be liable for the repair.

Claim 8 – Smoke alarm replacement

34.The landlord states that the smoke alarms were missing, having been provided at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost was $20.99.

Analysis

35. I accept the smoke alarms were provided by the landlord, and not returned by the tenant. The tenant is liable for the replacement cost, this is ordered in full.

Claim 9 – Skip bin

36.The landlord seeks the cost of a skip bin to address the rubbish left by the tenant. The bin cost was $500.00.

Analysis

37.The photographs show extensive rubbish on the premises when the premises were returned to the landlord. The tenant is liable for the rubbish, removal costs, including the skip bin.

Claim 10 – Rubbish removal

38.The landlord claims $1,600.00 for rubbish removal including for items that would not fit in the bin, and includes the tip fees.

Analysis

39.As above, there was extensive rubbish left on the premises, as well as on the grounds. The tenant is responsible for any costs incurred by the landlord

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 7

in removing that rubbish, including time and tip fees. The claim is proportionate to the work that would have been required, and it is ordered in full.

Claim 11 – Curtain replacement

40.The landlord claims curtain replacement costs of $188.00, which relates to the cost of replacing four curtains that were missing at the end of the tenancy, and new at the start of the tenancy.

Analysis

41.Again, the tenant is liable for the cost to replace any chattels that were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I accept that four curtains were missing as advised by the landlord, and so the tenant must be responsible for the replacement costs.

Claim 12 – Curtain track replacement

42.The landlord states that four curtain tracks were missing at the end of the tenancy, at a cost of $123.42.

Analysis

43.For the above reasons, the tenant is responsible for the replacement cost for items, not returned, including four curtain tracks. This is ordered in full.

Claim 13 – Downpipe replacement

44.The premises are two-story, and two of the downpipes were broken at chest height, and needed to be replaced. The cost for the repair was $1,408.60.

Analysis

45. I accept the downpipes were broken during the tenancy. It would be unlikely that the downpipes broke as a result of fair wear and tear, meaning that the tenant must prove that the damage was not careless or intentional, and she has not done so. The end result is that the tenant will be liable for the replacement costs. I note in relation to this claim, that the most likely situation is that the damage was intentional, so the tenant is responsible for the full replacement cost.

Claim 14 – Assorted hardware

46.The landlord has claimed for the replacement cost of assorted hardware to the sum of $140.34, such as for example casement stays that had been

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 8

snapped by the tenant. The landlord states that when they went to undertake repairs, the hardware was either broken or missing hence needing replacement.

Analysis

47.This claim relates to a range of smaller items that the landlord needed to replace. Given they are lower value, they have not been quantified individually, but would be consistent with the overall appearance of a tenancy that has been widely damaged by the tenant, or people at the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The tenant has not disputed liability, and on balance, I find this claim is established.

Claim 15 – Electrical fittings

48.The landlord claims $475.56 for damage to assorted light and electrical fittings.

Analysis

49. I am satisfied that the electrical fittings were damaged during the tenancy, and the damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage, so she is liable for the repair costs.

Claim 16 – Filing fee

50.The landlord claims the filing fee paid to commence these proceedings.

Analysis

51.Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

[NAME] 09 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 9

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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137291 10

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].