Tenant Ordered to Pay for Excessive Premises Damage
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant must pay for damages to the rented premises that exceed fair wear and tear, as determined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damage to the premises that exceeds fair wear and tear.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully recovered costs for damage caused by the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a Tenancy Tribunal ruling, the claimant successfully recovered costs for damage caused by the tenant, who was found liable under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5222452 1
[2025] NZTT 5222452
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WELLINGTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Room 9, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [ADDRESS] $2,694.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning, repairs and furniture replacement costs of $4,957.88 reduced for depreciation
$3,947.88
Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $3,974.88 Bond $1,280.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $2,694.88
Reasons:
1. The attended the hearing represented by [NAME]. There was no appearance for the tenant.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
3. The tenancy ended on 24 June 2024, following a notice by the landlord terminating the tenancy immediately due to the tenant causing substantial
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5222452 2
damage at the premises including damage to the next-door room. See section 66U(1)(a)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
4. 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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L RTA
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The tenant intentionally and substantially damaged his room as shown in the photos produced in evidence. The damage included multiple holes in the walls some of which penetrated through to the next-door room; a crack in the skylight; broken desk and set of drawers. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was intentional. Based on the photos, the room was also not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
8. The landlord provided a quote from the contractor who completed all the work required to repair and reinstate the room. The landlord confirmed that the work has been completed and the invoice paid is the same as the quote. The contractor itemised some, but not all, of the costs which covered cleaning, rubbish removal, repairing holes in wall linings, fixing entry door hardware; plastering and painting the room and replacing a desk and set of drawers.
9. I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that the overall costs appear to be reasonable and justified for the work required.
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.
11. In relation to the furnishings that were replaced, current depreciation guidelines estimate that furniture in a rental property should last approximately 10 years. [NAME] did not know the age of the desk and chair but noted they had not been replaced in the last 3 years that she has managed the property. They
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5222452 3
appear from the photos to be of average quality. The replacement cost was not itemised. However, the landlord supplied photos of the new furnishings and the desk appears to be one available online at [NAME] for $199. The set of drawers is similar to drawers available online from [NAME] costing $100. Therefore, I find the replacement furniture likely cost $300. Based on the evidence of age and quality, I consider the furniture was likely at least 5 years old and the remedial costs should be depreciated by 50% to $150. Therefore the sum of $150 is deducted from the sum claimed.
12. In relation to painted walls, current depreciation guidelines estimate they should last 10-14 years with bedroom walls expected to last longer than living areas. I consider 12 years is an appropriate estimate here. [NAME] could not say when the walls were last painted but it was before she took over management of the property 3 years ago. The inspection report prepared 2 months after the tenancy began dated 4 March 2024 records wear and tear on the walls and “Odd marks and a few little holes throughout.” On that basis I consider the painted walls were likely at least 5 years old and the cost of plastering and painting the walls should be reduced for depreciation by 40%. The cost itemised on the contractor’s quote was $2,150 inclusive of GST. Therefore the sum of $860 is deducted from the sum claimed.
13. I invited [NAME] to check with the owner as to the age of the above items but she preferred to leave the issue to the Tribunal’s discretion. Overall, I consider the amount awarded is fair and reasonable for the costs of remediating the damage caused.
14. As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.
[NAME]
24 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5222452 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5222452 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 caused by the tenant was determined to be more than normal wear and tear.
- The landlord provided a quote from the contractor, which matched the paid invoice for the repair work.
- The overall costs for repairs and reinstatement of the room were considered reasonable and justified by the Tribunal.
- The landlord was entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee because they largely succeeded in their claims.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant must pay for damages to the rented premises that exceed fair wear and tear.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was responsible for the extensive damage to the rented room, including holes in the walls and broken furniture.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was liable for the damage because it exceeded fair wear and tear, and the tenant failed to prove otherwise.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was proving that the damage was intentional and exceeded fair wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For landlords, this means they can seek compensation for damages that exceed fair wear and tear if the tenant cannot disprove liability.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photos of the damage and quotes from contractors for repairs were crucial pieces of evidence.