Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4934634 — Property damage
Decided 9 Oct 2024 · Published 9 Oct 2024 · Application 4934634
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Azure Paenga must pay [The landlord/s] $5,001.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
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 bond is not held by the Bond Centre.
- The landlord made enquiries following the hearing and determined that there is no record of the bond ever having been paid by the tenant.
- No order can be made in relation to the bond.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support all claims.
- The tenant was unable to remove all of the rubbish at the end of the tenancy and accepted the cost of $429.00 for rubbish removal.
- The tenant disputed having left the Council recycle bin contaminated and there was no identifiable contamination in the photograph provided. The invoice for rubbish removal made no mention of the recycle bin and is a reasonable amount for other rubbish disposal based on the photographs provided and is ordered in full.
- The tenant accepted that she ran out of time to complete all cleaning at the end of the tenancy. She disputed the amount claimed which included a substantial sum for (unsuccessful) attempts at cleaning drawing marks off walls which then had to be painted over.
- In acknowledgement of this the landlord agreed to reduce the amount claimed from the $908.50 invoiced to $608.50 and that amount is ordered.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for an invoice for $40.00 for lawn mowing.
- The tenant also accepted responsibility for some of the cost for weeding and general gardening (which had been reduced by the landlord from $293.25 to $200.00) but not the full $200.00.
- The landlord reduced this further during the hearing to $150.00 which the Tribunal considers reasonable given the photographs and the size of the garden.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- 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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
- 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 (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
- The tenant accepted responsibility for replacement of a door damaged during the tenancy and replaced at a cost of $350.75.
- During the tenancy the tenant drew, or allowed others to draw, on walls and other painted surfaces throughout the house. The landlord provided photographs to confirm the extent of the damage and it was substantial.
- The landlord had arranged for cleaners to attempt to remove the damage, but this had not been effective.
- Wallpaper had to be stripped in the kitchen and dining room and those rooms repainted.
- Damaged walls, architraves, and doors had to be repainted in other areas of the house.
- The tenant acknowledged that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and accepted responsibility for it but considered the amount claimed excessive.
- The amount paid by the landlord was $3,898.50 and an invoice was provided to confirm this.
- The landlord gave evidence that the walls in the kitchen, dining room, lounge and hall had been repainted just prior to this tenancy commencing. These rooms all required repainting due to extensive drawing on walls.
- Other rooms had not been repainted so recently but the landlord gave evidence that they were in reasonable condition.
- The landlord reduced the claim by $632.50 during the hearing in an acknowledgement of a small element of betterment and depreciation in relation to the rooms which were not freshly painted at the beginning of the tenancy.
- I consider the remaining amount, being $3,266.00, reasonable in the circumstances.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The applicant requested name suppression in the application and, as the applicant has been substantially successful, I order suppression of the landlord’s details.