Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4889743 — Property damage at 27 Glenfield Crescent, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052
Decided 6 Sept 2024 · Published 6 Sept 2024 · Application 4889743
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
- Smoke alarms
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.
- Dane William Carr and Maia Blossum Renata must pay [the landlord] $11,702.76 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The landlord’s claims for damage to the toilet vinyl, trellis and fence palings and sliding door are dismissed.
- The landlord may make a claim for the cost of replacing the concrete driveway if the driveway cleaning does not leave a satisfactory result.
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 26 March 2024 under application 4818602.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond was paid to the landlord under the Tribunal’s previous order in relation to this tenancy on 26 March 2024. Rent
- The tenancy ended on 26 March 2024 by order of the Tribunal on that date. The Tribunal awarded rent arrears to that date. The tenants vacated the premises on 2 April 2024, and they did not pay any more rent. The landlord is therefore entitled to another week’s rent being $580 as awarded. Previous Order
- The Tribunal’s previous order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 26 March 2024 and the filing fee is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Law Relating to the Landlord’s Other Claims
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Cleaning, Rubbish, Locks and Chattels
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the yellow council bin, two light fittings, a wall mounted heater, a lawn mower, some garden edging, four blinds, part of a dog door, garage shelving unit, a venetian blind, a wall shelf, a smoke alarm and three floor mats.
- The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs, quotations and invoices and evidence given by the landlord’s agents. Damage
- The following damage was caused to the premises during the tenancy; - • The concrete driveway was stained with oil. • The garage carpet was damaged. • A hole was put in the garage roof. • The bathroom vanity was cracked. • The laundry vinyl was gouged. • Curtains were damaged. • Garden edging was displaced and broken. • A screen door was buckled. • The cate door was broken. • A hole was cut in the garage work bench.
- The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
- The hole in the garage roof and the hole in the work bench was plainly caused intentionally.
- The sums awarded as compensation for the damage were proved by the production of photographs, quotations, invoices and evidence from the landlord’s agents.
- The landlord claims the estimated cost of replacing the concrete driveway on the assumption that cleaning it will not completely remove the oil stains on it. I have not awarded that cost because the cleaning may leave the driveway in a satisfactory state. But I have allowed the landlord to make an application for that cost if the cleaning does not leave the driveway in a satisfactory state.
- I note that if, after cleaning, the driveway is still stained, it does not necessarily follow that the landlord will be awarded the cost of replacing it. The Tribunal will consider whether it is reasonable in the circumstances to replace the driveway and will also consider how likely it is that the landlord will replace the driveway.
- The wall heater that was missing at the end of the tenancy cannot be replaced like for like and the landlord’s evidence of the cost of replacing it with something similar was unsatisfactory. I have therefore awarded my own estimate of what it will cost to buy a similar wall heater.
- I have dismissed the claims for relacing the toilet vinyl, the trellis and fence palings and sliding door.
- I was not satisfied that the vinyl was the result of the tenants’ carelessness. The other damage was more likely to be fair wear and tear.
- I have not awarded the handyman invoice for $2,377.74 in full. That included the trellis and fence palings and sliding door. There is also an element of betterment in relation to the garden edging. The original edging was well weathered, and the landlord will now have new edging which will last longer.
- I have awarded $200 instead of the $504.56 claimed for the garage shelving. That is based on my estimate of the second-hand value of the shelving unit that was missing. Filing Fee
- The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
- For the same reason I have granted the landlord’s request for name suppression.