Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4610692 — Property damage
Decided 25 Oct 2023 · Published 25 Oct 2023 · Application 4610692
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Brittney Rikki-Lee Straker must pay [The landlord/s] $2,600.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlords attended the hearing. This matter was adjourned for the landlords to put before the tribunal relevant evidence relating to their claim for compensation.
- Unpaid rent and water bills have already been ordered to be paid by the tenant and have been deducted from the bond which the landlords are in receipt of. The landlords still retain $1044.46 in relation to the bond. The history as to how that came to be is set out in the previous order, which I do not repeat here.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- Before and after photographs provided by the landlords depict what could almost be mistaken for two totally separate premises. The tenant has left the property in a filthy condition.
- The amounts ordered are proved. The landlords did not retain the services of a cleaner but did all of the work themselves. The landlords submitted relevant time records that justify the time spent and I have assessed a reasonable charge on that basis.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a) holes in two of the doors (b) damage to the framing around the bath (c) destruction of the railing on the stairs (d) irreparable damage to the carpet leading to the need for total replacement. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. The landlords were able to reduce the overall cost of the repairs by undertaking a lot of the work themselves. I have allowed a charge for their time based on what I assess to be a reasonable cost of that work. I have allowed their claims for material costs from Bunnings.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation, and hence there is a reduction in the amount claimed for carpet replacement which I note was in any event a fairly modest claim.
- Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.