Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4912994 — Property damage
Decided 4 Feb 2025 · Published 4 Feb 2025 · Application 4912994
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- 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 names and identifying details of both parties.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,511.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- 99 Tenant Replace damaged vanity (insurance excess)$500.00 Carpet cleaning$227.70 Repair bathroom flooring$305.00 Door repair (consent)$322.00 Repair dishwasher door$136.85 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,152.98 Bond$640.99 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1511.99
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $640.99 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- The landlord’s claim for repainting the garage is withdrawn.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants’ application was heard by the Tribunal on 13 November 2024. The adjudicator made an order for the part-refund of the bond to the tenants including an amount for exemplary damages.
- The tenants confirmed today that there were no other issues to be determined on their application; it was a defence to the landlord’s application.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of a 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 (RTA).
- The landlord has claimed for carpet cleaning. Although the tenants had the carpets cleaned, the photos provided by the landlord show that stains were still present. Further carpet cleaning removed the stains. I find this claim proved.
Are the tenants 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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The bathroom vanity was damaged when a glass shelf from a cupboard above fell onto it while one of the tenants was cleaning it. The tenants said the damage was accidental. I find that the damage was careless damage. The landlord’s claim is limited to the amount of the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy - $500.00.
- The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for the repair of a door. I have allowed that claim by consent.
- The dishwasher door was buckled at the end of the tenancy. The dishwasher had been replaced during the tenancy and was relatively new. I find the cost of the repair to the dishwasher proved.
- The bathroom floor was water damaged causing the vinyl to lift. The repair assessments produced in evidence explain the probable cause of the damage – flooding which over time has got under the vinyl planking causing it to lift and the floor to swell.
- The landlord has obtained 3 separate assessments. It has accepted the cheapest quote for the repair - $305.00. I find that the tenants are liable for this cost.
- The damage for which the landlord has claimed is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, a quote, reports, and photos.
- As the application is mostly successful, the tenants must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
- Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is entitled to a name suppression order as the application is mostly successful. The Tribunal previously granted the tenants name suppression so that must continue.