Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4627409 — Cleanliness at 27 Nicholas Drive, Linwood, Christchurch 8062
Decided 12 Sept 2023 · Published 12 Sept 2023 · Application 4627409
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
Order
- The order replaces the order made on 4 September 2023.
- No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited as Agent for Hayden and [The landlord/s] $2,231.90 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The claim for damage to the heat pump is dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5228382-007) to Braziers Limited as Agent for Hayden and [The landlord/s] immediately.
- 44 Total award$4,111.90 Less bond$1,880.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,231.90
Reasons
- This order replaces the order made on 4 September 2023 because there were some errors and omissions in that order.
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Patterson represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This tenancy ran from February 2021 to Friday 6 January 2023 following a termination notice from the landlord on the ground that the landlord intended selling the premises. The premises were not sold and have now been re- tenanted.
- The tenant occupied the premises with her two young children.
- Braziers took over the management of the tenancy in November 2022. Their first property inspection was the end of tenancy inspection on Monday 9 January 2023. Braziers have the original property manager’s file which they say they have checked in relation to some issues raised by the tenant’s response to this application. Rent Arrears
- The landlord provided rent records for the term of the tenancy showing arrears of $205.71 relating to the last three days of the tenancy. The tenant accepted that. The Tenant’s Obligations and Liability Limits
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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. The Claims Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
- The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Walls and carpet needed significant cleaning.
- The landlord produced an invoice in the sum of $1,224.75 which included cleaning the walls and carpet as well as general cleaning.
- The tenant did not dispute the claim and I find that it is reasonable. Stain Treatment
- After the initial cleaning, stains remained on the carpet. This was very apparent in one of the bedrooms where there were marks on the carpet from a marker pen.
- The landlord employed a carpet cleaner to try to remove the stains. They were unsuccessful but it was reasonable to try and so I have awarded the $80.50 cost. Carpet Replacement
- The extent of the marks in one of the bedrooms was such that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpet. I have therefore awarded the insurance excess which is less than the cost of replacing the carpet. Kitchen Splashback
- The kitchen splashback was badly cracked during the tenancy and had to be replaced. The tenant referred to a boiling jug close to the splashback and said that it caused a crack that became progressively worse. She said that she reported it to the property manager at the time. She also referred to her high use of the electrical outlet that was fitted to the splashback.
- The damage appears to be from an impact as opposed to gradual damage from use of the electrical socket or heat. In any case, I am not persuaded that it was not careless damage by the tenant. I have therefore awarded the excess which is more than the cost of replacing the splashback. Back Door
- The landlord claims $80.50 for securing back door. The tenant said that it was secure when she vacated the premises.
- The tenant said that the door was damaged when it slammed shut in the wind and that it was never right after that. When the landlord attended for the end of tenancy inspection, they found it hanging off its hinges. There are possible other explanations for that, but the most plausible explanation is that it was damaged during the tenancy and that it was not secured to the door frame when the tenant vacated the premises. I have therefore awarded the cost.
- Following on from that, the landlord had to replace the back door because the frame was twisted. That is consistent with the tenant’s evidence that the door was damaged during the tenancy and was never right after that. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage to the door and so I have awarded the insurance excess which is less than the cost of replacing the door. Heat Pump
- The landlord claims $657.51 for damage to the heat pump. There are two invoices. One for $210.45 dated 23 February for checking damage and fitting new discharge grill and top plate. It refers to photographs, but none were produced.
- The second invoice is for $447.06 dated 8 May. It refers to supply and install a front panel assembly. The landlord explained that it took some time to source the correct part.
- But the first call out for the heat pump plainly happened well after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that when she vacated the heat pump was working and that she had not had any problem with it. She denied damaging it.
- There is a photograph of a small plastic part, seemingly broken. But there was no evidence of where that part came from or how it could have been broken by the tenant’s careless use of the heat pump.
- It is possible that it was damaged after the tenant vacated or that the damage occurred during normal use for some reason. The evidence is not enough for me find that the tenant carelessly damaged the heat pump and I have therefore dismissed the claim. Shower
- The outgoing photographs show severe damage to the shower tray. The landlord replaced the entire shower as a result.
- The tenant said that the shower tray felt soft and eventually it cracked. She said that she did not do anything unusual to cause the damage although she said that she did sometimes shower with her two young children. The landlord said that doing so may have been the cause of the damage and that it would be careless damage.
- I disagree that the tenant having her young children in the shower with her amounts to careless use of the shower. A properly installed shower should be able to cope with that. The landlord said that the shower was installed correctly although there was no independent evidence of that.
- The tenant said that she reported the shower damage to the property manager at the time and that she expected it to be fixed. She could not be precise about when she reported the damage but said it was after August 2022.
- Following the hearing, the landlord produced the report of the routine inspection on 21 October 2022. It shows the shower undamaged.
- After considering this evidence, I have concluded that the tenant has not disproved liability for the shower damage. The inspection report casts doubt on the tenant’s evidence regarding reporting the damage. I also find it difficult to accept that the tenant would continue using the shower with the damage shown in the photographs. It would be unreasonable to do so, in my view.
- I therefore find the claim proved and I have awarded the insurance excess which is less than the cost of replacing the shower. Wall and Door Damage
- There was damage to walls and doors during the tenancy which exceeds fair wear and tear. In one case there was an attempted repair that was not completed. The tenant did not dispute liability for the damage and so I have awarded the insurance excess which is less than the cost or repairs and painting. Filing Fee
- The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Result
- The bond will be paid to the landlord and the tenant must pay the remaining liability. The parties will need to discuss how that will be paid.