Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4809957 — Property damage at 42B Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629
Decided 13 Jun 2024 · Published 13 Jun 2024 · Application 4809957
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Moana Marsters and Nathan Marsters must pay Qing Wen Lei $4,590.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6048839-010) to Qing Wen Lei immediately.
- The claims are allowed as set out in this order and
Reasons
. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning and rubbish removal$1,000.00 Carpet replacement$5,232.50 Paintwork$650.00 Materials for repairing doors and windows$258.57 Light bulb replacement$128.64 Landlords’ labour$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$7,790.15 Bond$3,200.00 Total remaining amount tenants must pay$4,590.15
Reasons:
- The landlord attended the hearing.
- The tenants did not attend. The Tribunal’s electronic record indicates Tenancy Services sent the tenants a notice of hearing and several reminders. The tenants have not communicated with the Tribunal to explain their non- attendance. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for water?
- The tenancy ended on 20 January 2024. The landlord provided a final water invoice but no water summary. I am not satisfied the tenants were in arrears for water. This claim is dismissed.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
- Tenants must also replace standard lightbulbs that have failed during the tenancy.
- The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their rubbish.
- The landlord provided images on her cell phone showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. 2
- The landlord claimed $1,000.00 for her own time and cost of materials for cleaning. I am satisfied that a professional cleaning company would have charged at least that amount to return the premises to a reasonable standard of cleanliness and I allow the claim in that amount.
- The landlord had to replace many light bulbs. An order of $128.64 is made for those. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e). 2 The landlord is to email aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz with a copy of the photographs for uploading to the file.
- The landlord sought reimbursement for the cost of missing smoke alarms. However, the landlord did not produce any photographs or receipts to support the claim. This claim is not allowed.
Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims for damage and property loss for the following: replacing the carpets due to pet damage, repainting the hall and dining room walls and ceiling, repairing a damaged wooden door and frame, replacing two door handles and a sliding door lock; and damage to the curtains and curtain rails.
- To succeed in a damage claim, landlords must prove any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord establishes this, to avoid liability, tenants 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. 3
- Where the tenant damages the premises carelessly, and the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. 4 In this case the landlord’s insurer paid out for shower door and window damage. The insurer did not charge an excess, so there was no loss for that although the landlord believes her next premium will be higher due to having made a claim.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing intentional damage that is or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to the tenant does and their guests. 5
- 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. 6
- I am satisfied that a pet or pets damaged the carpets by urinating on the carpets during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is allowed. I apply depreciation of three-tenths of the invoice provided to account for depreciation. 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA, s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The landlord says the tenants damaged the hallway and dining/living area walls and ceilings by misusing the wood burner. The smoke damage is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks an order for $2,875.00 and supplied a painter’s invoice for the work. I allow $650.00 for the repainting because some of walls that were repainted had not been repainted for more than five years and it is expected that walls in living areas will need to be repainted about every five years. The tenants should not have to pay for betterment to the premises.
- I allow the claim in respect to the door handles, sliding door lock, and wooden door damage. The Tribunal orders $258.57 for materials and parts and $500.00 for the landlord’s husband’s time for labour.
- I do not allow the claim for replacing all the curtains. There were no photographs of the state of the curtains prior to the tenancy nor at the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied the curtains were damaged during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. Filing fee
- The Tribunal orders the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has substantially succeeded in its claim.