Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4737070 — Rent arrears at 85 Faringdon Boulevard, Rolleston 7615
Decided 23 Feb 2024 · Published 23 Feb 2024 · Application 4737070
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited as Agent for Mike Greer $1,187.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,335.00 (6210920-009) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited as Agent for Mike Greer: $1,127.10 [The tenant/s]: $207.90
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Edwards 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. Rent
- The tenancy ended on 8 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenant did not dispute the arrears amount. The Relevant Law
- 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.
- The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet
- The tenant accepted that carpet in one bedroom was stained during the tenancy. The stain could not be removed. The landlord produced a photograph showing a red stain in one of the bedrooms.
- There was a photograph of a brownish stain in another bedroom. The invoice for carpet cleaning refers to three bedrooms and a red stain in the first bedroom.
- I accept that two bedrooms needed to be cleaned due to staining but without photographic evidence of a stain in the third bedroom and given there is no reference to it in the invoice, I cannot accept that the third bedroom needed cleaning. I have therefore awarded two thirds of the invoice amount. Bedroom Walls
- There is a photograph of one of the bedrooms showing posters and such like on the walls. Ms Edwards said that there was sticky residue left on the walls at the end of the tenancy from the sticky tape applied to the walls. She said that the cleaner tried unsuccessfully to remove the residue, and that a contractor then came in to sand and paint the affected walls.
- The tenant said that she was not aware of any residue left on the walls and she pointed out that the work was done two months after the tenancy ended and well after new tenants had moved in. She suggested that it was redecoration rather than repair related to any residue.
- Ms Edwards explained the delay and said that she sent the work order shortly after the tenancy ended. I accept that and find that the delay is not material.
- But the landlord was not able to produce any photographs of the bedroom after the posters were removed. That means that there is no conclusive evidence of the presence and extent of the residue on the walls.
- Using sticky tape on painted walls is risky because it is liable to cause damage to the paint by removing it and it may also leave some residue. Despite the less- than-ideal evidence, I find that there was some residue left on the walls of the bedroom. Ms Edward’s evidence, the photograph that was produced and the invoices are enough to do that. What I cannot do without a photograph is assess the extent of it.
- The residue left on the walls means that in that respect the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Because it could not be removed by cleaning, it was reasonable for the landlord to call in the contractor.
- Because I am unable to properly assess the extent of the residue, I have awarded the cleaning cost and half the painting cost. I have made the reduction partly due to the inadequate evidence and partly due to the over five years length of the tenancy. Filing Fee
- The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
- I have split the bond to give effect to my decision. Tenant’s Claims
- The tenant raised two claims of her own. I could not deal with them because there was no formal application, but I will refer to them.
- The tenant paid a letting fee which she said was illegal. The tenancy began in May 2018 which was before the law changed to prohibit letting fees. The landlord was therefore entitled to charge a letting fee.
- The tenant said that she had to pay the bill for reticulated gas supplied to the premises before the tenancy began before she could get gas supplied to her. On the face of it, that may appear to be an issue between her and the gas supplier. But tenants are liable to pay only for outgoings that are attributable to their occupation of the premises (s39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
- The landlord owned the premises before the tenancy, and this was the first tenancy of the premises. The tenant could reasonably expect to have gas supplied to the premises and so it seems to me that the landlord should have ensured that was possible without the tenant having to pay for gas used previously.
- The tenant should not have to make an application to the Tribunal to recover from the landlord the cost of the gas used prior to the tenancy. Subject to proof, I would expect the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the cost of that gas.