Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4799230 — Rent arrears at 21 Taurima Street, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042
Decided 6 May 2024 · Published 6 May 2024 · Application 4799230
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Great Wall Property Management Limited as Agent for Michelle Tsai $7,771.82 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (3494888-011) to Great Wall Property Management Limited as Agent for Michelle Tsai immediately.
Reasons
- Ms McLeod attended the hearing for the landlord. The landlord’s main contractor also attended. The tenants did not attend.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The main claim for compensation is for the cost of rubbish removal, cleaning and garden work in the sum of $10,381.13. There are other claims, including for loss of rent in the sum of $2080 being four weeks rent. Rent
- The tenancy ended on 12 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as awarded. The Tenants’ Other Obligations
- 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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Claims and Awards Background
- The tenants were evicted following a Tribunal order terminating the tenancy for rent arrears.
- The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- There was a substantial amount of rubbish left at the premises, inside and outside the house.
- There was no evidence that the tenants did any cleaning and tidying of the premises before they left or for some considerable time before they left.
- The outside area of the premises was neglected and overgrown.
- The landlord employed Relativity Limited (Relativity) to undertake the rubbish removal, cleaning and garden work. They produced photographs showing the premises after they had completed their work and it is obvious that they did a very good job.
- The landlord has produced photographs and invoices in support of the claims. Padlock and Chain
- Upon taking possession, the landlords secured the premises with a chain and padlock. Given that the tenants had left a lot of their belongings in the premises, it was reasonable for the landlords to do so and I have awarded the claim in full. Keys
- The tenant did not return the keys and I have awarded the claim for changing the locks in full. Electrical Work
- Some electrical fittings were broken during the tenancy and had to be replaced. The invoice for electrical work in the sum of $848.93 includes the installation of a hard-wired smoke alarm system. Rightly, there was no suggestion that the tenants should have to pay for that.
- The invoice does not contain a breakdown of the costs and so I must make an assessment, as best I can, of the costs that are claimable from the tenants. My assessment is that the tenants should pay 50% of the invoice and so I have awarded $425. Carpet Cleaning
- The carpets were dirty and stained and I have awarded the cost of carpet cleaning in full. Rubbish Removal, Cleaning and Garden Work
- Relativity produced three invoices for their work and associated expenses. Their time was charged at the rate of $42 per hour which I find to be reasonable.
- The invoices refer to Green Waste, General Waste and cleaning although it appears that there is some overlap between them. They include dump fees, trailer hire and travel. They also include a cost for taking photographs. That is not recoverable from the tenants. The photographs were taken and produced for evidential purposes. Because no costs are awarded in the Tribunal, other than is specified circumstances, I make no award for the photographs.
- I have awarded the dump fees, trailer hire and travel in full.
- The Green Waste invoice refers to two workers working five, seven and a half hour days.
- The General Waste invoice refers to two workers working four, seven and a half hour days.
- The Cleaning invoice does not provide a breakdown of hours. It simply states an amount of $2,520. That is the equivalent of two workers working four, seven and a half hour days being the same as the General Waste invoice.
- The total time claimed for across the three invoices is 195 hours. That is the equivalent of one person working seven and a half hours a day for 26 days.
- I do not accept these are reasonable time allocations for the work that was needed to bring the premises to a standard that the tenants should have left them in if they had complied with their obligations.
- I accept that a substantial amount of work was needed to bring the premises to the required standard. But I cannot accept that it would take two people working together nearly two weeks.
- In my view, the discrepancy between the hours claimed and what, at least in my view, would be reasonable is due in part to some of the work exceeding what was required to meet the tenants’ obligations. For example, it is clear from the evidence that there was substantial cutting back of trees and other vegetation in the garden. That is not the tenants’ responsibility. The condition that the premises were put in by Relativity also exceeded the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
- I am left, therefore, to make my own assessment of what is a reasonable time for two people to complete the work that was required.
- For the rubbish removal I find that approximately three days would be needed. I allow $2,000 for that work.
- For the cleaning I find that approximately two days would be needed. I note that time was needed to clean writing and other marks from walls as well as general cleaning and I allow $1,500 for the work.
- For the outside work I find that one and a half days would be needed, and I allow $1,000 for that work.
- That makes a total of $$4,500 to which I add GST of $675, Dump fees of $832.11, trailer hire of $170.02 and vehicle charges of $165.60. All these expenses include GST. That makes a total of $6,342.73. The landlord sold the wreck of a car that was left on the premises for $350 and after deducting that I have awarded $5,992.73. Loss of Rent
- The work to put the premises into a lettable condition was completed by 16 January 2024 and the premises were relet from 23 January. The Christmas holiday period fell between the end of the tenancy and the reletting and so presumably there was no work for a period of two weeks over Christmas and New Year.
- The run up to Christmas can be an awkward time to find new tenants in any circumstances. But I accept that it’s likely that the premises could have been relet sooner if they had been returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
- The landlord claims four weeks loss of rent which assumes that the premises could have been relet before Christmas. That’s possible, but there is also the possibility that it would have been after Christmas in any case.
- There is an element of loss of chance and so I have awarded three weeks loss of rent. Filing Fee
- The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Result
- The bond will be paid to the landlord and the tenants must pay the remaining liability.