Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4682752 — Property damage at Room 1, 23 Clarke Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North
Decided 10 Jan 2024 · Published 10 Jan 2024 · Application 4682752
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Crystal Faulkner-England must pay [The landlord/s] $1,996.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Repairs: showerhead$56.05 Repairs: walls and doors, carpet clean$2,656.50 Lock/key replacement$353.50 Rubbish removal$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,236.49 Bond-$1,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,996.49
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- The landlord’s application for compensation for fire damage is dismissed.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all goods and rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L RTA
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. Damage to the showerhead. b. Damage to the wardrobe door. c. Damage to the walls and paint. d. Dirty carpet. e. Fire damage to the exterior of the premises.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and, with the exception of the fire damage, the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- In relation to the fire damage, while I sympathise with the landlord, this portion of the claim is not proved. The damage occurred in the early hours of the morning, when the tenant’s vehicle was set alight by former associates of hers. This was likely retaliation for various lifestyle choices made by the tenant. The associates had been at the premises earlier in the event, there was an argument and they left. They returned under cover of darkness and lit the fire. In those circumstances, I cannot conclude that they were there at the tenant’s invitation or with her permission, and the claim must fail.
- Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.