Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4719929 — Property damage
Decided 30 Jan 2024 · Published 30 Jan 2024 · Application 4719929
- 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.
- Justine Harwood must pay the landlord $9,821.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
- I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
- The landlord has applied for compensation for general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the 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 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The entire house required a deep clean and the oven required a bio clean.
- The gardens required tidying.
- There was a considerable amount of rubbish and furnishings left at the premises that had to be disposed of. This included 2 fridges beds and other large household items the tenant no longer wanted and did not collect.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The landlord had to replace smoke alarms that had been damaged.
- 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 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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. Broken window in main bedroom and entrance door that needed to be covered for security purposes while glass ordered to size and then fitted; b. The locks needed to be changed on all external doors, as keys were not returned; c. The locks needed to be replaced in bathroom and toilet as they were damaged; d. There were holes in the majority of walls that needed to be repaired and walls repainted; e. The toilet door was damaged and needed replacing; f. 3 window latches were damaged and needed replacing; g. 2 cupboards were damaged and needed repairing; h. Window frames were damaged and needed replacing; i. The cabinet panels for the fridge needed repairs; j. The outside hatch to under the house was pulled off and damaged; k. The power sockets were damaged throughout the house; l. The internet box on the wall was damaged and needed replacing; m. The house was full of fleas and cockroaches that required extermination; and n. The first bedroom curtain was damaged due to the broken window.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Because the applicant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.