Tenant Ordered to Pay for Premises Damages
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that tenants must pay for damages to the premises that go beyond normal wear and tear. In this case, the tenants were ordered to pay $1,814.50 for stains on the carpet and marks on the wall.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages to the premises that exceed fair wear and tear.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay for damages to the premises.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $1,814.50 for damages to the premises, including carpet stains and wall marks, which exceeded fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 1
[2025] NZTT 5175218, 5179891
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] $1,814.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 (6455726-015) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY]: $1,814.50
[NAME] and [NAME]: $145.50
Description Landlord Tenant Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess $750.00 Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess $750.00 Carpet Cleaning: Painting invoice $287.50 Carpet Cleaning $27.00 Total award $1,814.50 Bond $1,814.50 $145.50
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference. [NAME] represented the tenants.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The premises were brand new when the tenancy began, which was confirmed by a pre-tenancy inspection report.
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 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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) A wall in a bedroom was damaged by hooks placed by the tenants and their repairs required finishing.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 3
b) The carpet was damaged by juice spills caused by the tenant’s child.
10. The property was initially managed by [NAME]. In December 2022 they were taken over by [COMPANY], who managed the property from that date.
11. The tenant said that he had asked advice from [NAME] about hanging items on the walls and was told to use hooks because they did not remove the paint when taken out. There was no written evidence confirming this, the tenant said that it was all verbal.
12. The marks on the wall were chest high under a window and there was no dispute that this damage was caused by the tenant. The tenant said that they had made an effort to fix and repaint the damage.
13. The photographs provided show a wall with some painted over hole marks still visible. I find that this is careless damage, and the tenant is liable for the cost to repair.
14. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, and it was not disputed that it had about fours stains in the lounge area, one at the bottom of the stairs and one upstairs at an entrance to a room. The tenant said that they were juice stains caused by his daughter, but they had not told the landlord about them.
15. The tenant said that the lounge stain was visible and was there at inspections. This was never raised by the property managers as a problem, otherwise they would have got a stain removal expert earlier. They had tried stain removers themselves.
16. At the end of the tenancy, the tenants had the carpet professionally cleaned and left a copy of the invoice for the landlord. The stains were still visible, and the landlords engaged their own carpet cleaners to see if they could be removed.
17. The landlord then sought insurance to cover the cost to replace the stains in this area. The insurance excess was confirmed as $750.00 per incident and was classed by the insurer as two separate incidents.
18. I find the damage to the carpet is careless damage. There was more than one incident over a period of time that caused the carpet damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
19. The amounts claimed by the landlord are awarded ordered.
20. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 4
21. The landlord was wholly successful with their claim and the filing fee is reimbursed.
[NAME]
15 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5175218 6
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 is responsible for the cost to repair the wall damage caused by hooks.
- The stains on the carpet caused by the tenant's child are considered careless damage.
- The landlord's insurance excess of $750.00 per incident is applicable for the carpet damage.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's verbal advice from the previous property manager that hooks were acceptable is not sufficient evidence.
- The tenant's efforts to clean and repaint the wall damage were insufficient to disprove liability.
- The repeated juice stains on the carpet over time are more than 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 tenants were ordered to pay $1,814.50 for damages to the premises, including carpet stains and wall marks.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenants were responsible for the stains on the carpet and marks on the wall, which the landlord claimed exceeded fair wear and tear.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenants were liable for the damages because the stains and marks went beyond normal wear and tear and were caused by the tenants' actions.
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 that the damages were caused by the tenants and exceeded fair wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenants who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should be aware that they may be held responsible for damages to the premises that go beyond normal wear and tear.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the stains and marks on the carpet and wall were presented as evidence.