VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenants Ordered to Pay $621.97 for Property Damage

Case No. [2026] NZTT 5411891

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that tenants must pay the landlord a total of $621.97 for bond balance, cleaning costs, and wall repairs exceeding fair wear and tear. The decision highlights the tenant's responsibility for property damage beyond normal use.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is liable for the cost of repairing damage that exceeds fair wear and tear if they cannot prove it was not caused carelessly or intentionally.

Topics

tenancy disputesdamage to rental property

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s.40

This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including paying rent on time, keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy, and notifying the landlord of any damage or needed repairs. When moving out, tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all their belongings and rubbish.

Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s.41

This section states that a tenant is responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property, if those actions would have been a breach of the tenancy agreement had the tenant done them. If someone intentionally or carelessly damages the property while the tenant is there, it is assumed the tenant allowed that person to be there.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.

📖 Technical summary

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered tenants to pay a net amount of $621.97 for bond balance, cleaning costs, and repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay a net amount of $621.97, covering bond balance, cleaning costs, and wall repairs exceeding fair wear and tear. The landlord successfully proved that damage occurred during tenancy and was not due to fair wear and tear.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 1

[2026] NZTT 5411891

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted] For [NAME]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] must pay [COMPANY] as agent for [NAME] $621.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Balance of Bond $268.53 Cleaning $747.50 Repairs: painting $115.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $890.50 $268.53 Net award $621.97 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $621.97

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing.

2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 2

3. The bond has already been refunded in full to the landlord and this was used to cover rent arrears and water rates which were not disputed by the tenant. This leaves a remaining balance of $287.50.

4. The tenants did not dispute the cost claimed for cleaning and these are awarded as claimed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. [NAME] v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

10. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: A patch of paint on the dark blue wall in the master bedroom was worn.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 3

11. The tenant said that this damage is fair wear and tear, due to the low quality of the paint work and the general fading of the painted wall over time. The tenant said that they had informed the landlords of the fading paint and photographs were provided of the wall over time showing the paint in patches fading. The tenant was unable to provide copies of written communications letting the landlord know about their concerns with the painted wall. The tenant sad that they sat up in bed to watch movies and this was where the paint had deteriorated. This had not occurred on another wall when the bed had been orientated against it.

12. The landlord said that they had not been told of the damage to the wall during the tenancy and discovered it when the tenancy ended. Four copies of house inspections conducted during the tenancy were provided, all showing the wall undamaged, but it is noted that in some photographs it was hard to see the area that was damaged.

13. There was a claim that the wall had been painted at the start of the tenancy, but pre-inspection photographs show that the wall was already marked next to where the damaged occurred prior to this tenancy starting. The landlord could not provide a date when the painting of the room took place.

14. The landlord claimed $287.50 for repainting the wall on the basis that it was more than fair wear and tear.

15. I find that this is careless damage as it is more than fair wear and tear and there was no evidence provided about the standard or the painting or that the tenant let the landlord know about its decline in condition.

16. The amount claimed is depreciated based on a 10 year lifespan for painted walls in a tenancy, and that it was not in new condition at the start of the current tenancy. This tenancy was for 4 years, and two years is added as an estimate of the length of the previous tenancy when the room was supposed to have been painted. This means the approximate age of the painted walls is 6 years, leaving 4 years. I find that the depreciated value of the repairs to be $115.00 and this is awarded.

17. The amounts ordered are proved.

18. 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.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 4

19. [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

[NAME]

29 May 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5411891 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:

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • Tenant is liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear.
  • Tenant must prove they did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally.
  • Tenant is required to comply with payment obligations.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered tenants to pay a net amount of $621.97, including bond balance, cleaning costs, and wall repairs exceeding fair wear and tear.

Who was involved?

A landlord and two tenants were involved in the dispute over property damage and rental costs.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that tenants must pay for damages beyond normal use because they could not prove it was fair wear and tear.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied to determine liability for property damage.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord successfully argued that the wall damage exceeded fair wear and tear and was not reported during tenancy.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the landlord, who initiated the claim.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants may be liable for property damage beyond fair wear and tear if they cannot prove otherwise.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs showing the condition of the wall over time were crucial to proving the extent of the damage.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal within 10 working days if they believe there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer to understand your rights and options.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.