Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4930913 — Tenancy dispute at 202 Happy Valley Road, Owhiro Bay, Wellington 6023
Decided 31 Oct 2024 · Published 31 Oct 2024 · Application 4930913
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Home & About Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,364.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This tenancy lasted for nine years. The parties had a good relationship during the tenancy. They have not been able to agree on the refund of the bond and on how much the tenants should be paid for maintenance carried out during the tenancy.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 tenants were not ready to move out at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave them another week. The tenants moved out of the house but still had belongings and rubbish in the garage, outside, and in two shipping containers. At the start of February, the parties agreed the tenants could have extra time and they agreed to a rate for the use of the landlord’s land. The tenants have not paid the full amount.
- I find I have jurisdiction to decide this claim because I consider it to be part of the process for disposal of goods left at the end of the tenancy as set out in sections 62–62C RTA. I have considered the submissions; the emails, and the landlord’s patience, and I find the amount agreed to be reasonable. The tenants have the best evidence that the house was empty of all belongings and rubbish by 2 March 2024. An order is made for compensation based on the landlord’s rate to 2 March.
- The claim for the key was withdrawn at the hearing.
Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?
- There are claims for damage. In these claims the 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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- I am also required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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.
- There is a claim for compensation for damage to cupboards in the garage. The cupboards were old but still usable as garage storage, even with one of the doors missing, a hole, and the art. I find there was no loss to the landlord and this claim is dismissed.
- There is a claim for replacing the grass and some of the plants is an area where the tenants constructed shelters along the fence. The landlord had photos taken at the end of the tenancy showing the dead grass. It seems most likely to me the items and the way they were stored caused the grass to die. I have allowed the claim for grass seed and a small amount of labour for sowing.
- I have not allowed the claim for replacement plants. The landlord did not have a photo from 2015 showing the plants at the start of the tenancy. This means they cannot prove the claim for replacement plants. This claim is dismissed.
- There is a claim for compensation for repairing some decorative bricks placed alongside the driveway. The landlord had never checked the bricks so it is possible these were loose at the start of the tenancy. Tenants are not required to pay for fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
- There is a claim for compensation for repairs to two separate fences. The landlord said damage was not reported for one fence and the storage shelters destroyed the other. The tenants had the best photographic evidence of the fences, including a photo taken in 2018. I can see the fences were very old. It seems most likely to me that ordering the tenants to pay for replacement fences would result in a significant improvement to the premises, which is not allowed. The claim for replacing the fences is dismissed.
- There is a claim for removing unauthorised retaining walls erected by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord submitted that the wall looked unsafe, and they had to remove the retaining wall and make repairs because there was damage to the bank. I have not been provided with photos showing the damage to the bank so it is hard for me to decide if the claim is reasonable. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
- There is a claim for damage to the roof tiles. The landlord said some of the tiles were damaged at the start of the tenancy but more were damaged at the end. The landlord blamed the tenant and has claimed the cost of replacing a number of tiles. It is hard for the landlord to prove this claim because they did not record the number of broken tiles at the start of the tenancy. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
How much should be paid for work done during the tenancy?
- The tenants agreed to carry out maintenance because the landlord was overseas during the pandemic. I have been provided with emails which confirm there was an agreement for the work to be carried out and paid. The parties have never finalised the payment.
- I find there was an agreement the tenants could replace boards on a deck. I do not accept there was an agreement to replace the deck on one side of the house. It seems most likely to me the tenants should have checked with the landlord before expecting to be paid for 30 hours of labour. I have allowed compensation for 15 hours and materials as agreed by the landlord.
- I find there was an agreement the tenants would wash the outside of the house three times during the tenancy, stain the deck, remove moss from the roof, and cut the ivy. The hours claimed for this work seem reasonable to me. The landlord said the tenants never gave him a quote/invoice for the work, but this was a done as a favour. If the landlord was concerned about the tenants spending 20 hours on the house wash they could have hired contractors for the next two cleans. I allow the $2940 claimed less the two weeks of free rent already used during the tenancy. I do not accept that the landlord sold the wooden shutters to the tenants at the end of the tenancy. Other orders
- The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. I have sent the request to the bond centre.
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Both parties have made applications for suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See section 95A RTA.
- The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when a party has to pay compensation.