Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5003908 — Rent arrears at 10 Lomas Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
Decided 25 Feb 2025 · Published 25 Feb 2025 · Application 5003908
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
Sophie Tearetoa and Tungarangi Tearetoa must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited acting as agent for Jamie Dally $4,594.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing. Ms Brown appeared for the landlord. The landlord’s legal counsel, Ms O’Callaghan, appeared by phone.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy began on 23 November 2022 and ended on 15 July 2024 following a mediated agreement.
- The bond was released to the landlord which left the amount of $1,803.56 in rent arrears and the balance of $21.10 owing from a Watercare invoice dated 23 April 2024.
- The landlord provided a rent summary and Watercare invoice proving the amounts owing.
- These amounts are proved.
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, 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.
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. 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- 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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- 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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- 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. Carpet
- The landlord said that the carpets were left in very bad condition, were covered in stains and dog hair and had a bad smell. The landlord said that they cleaned the carpet but the stains could not be removed and the smell remained.
- The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy which show the carpet in good condition.
- The landlord produced photos showing very heavy staining of the carpet right throughout the property.
- The landlord has proved that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than wear and tear.
- The landlord has replaced the carpet and has made an insurance claim. The landlord’s insurer has applied four excesses of $650 each (total $2,600 to replace the carpet).
- 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 I am required to take into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy
- The landlord did not know the age of the carpet but said that the landlord purchased the property in March 2021 and that the carpet was in good condition with plenty of wear left in it at that stage.
- I estimate that the carpet was likely to be at least one year old when the landlord purchased the property, so approximately two years old at the start of the tenancy. The Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules estimate the useful life span of carpet to be eight years. The carpet was therefore approximately four years old at the end of the tenancy, half-way through its estimated lifespan.
- I therefore award the landlord the sum of $1,300 being the 50% of the combined insurance excesses for carpet replacement. Repairs (removal and retrofitting locks, sanding and preparing holes for doors
- The landlord said that the tenant fitted tower bolt locks to four internal doors (3 bedrooms and the bathroom) without the permission of the landlord. The locks were roughly installed and large holes were drilled into the door framing to accommodate these locks. The landlord said that there was also significant scratching to the doors and frames.
- The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy showing that there were no locks on the doors, and that there was no scratches or missing paint on the doors (although there was some wear and tear to the door frames).
- The landlord produced photos showing the locks, holes, missing paint and scratching.
- I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
- The landlord engaged a contractor to remove the locks and to sand the doors, fill the hole sand paint.
- The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,000 from a contractor for this work.
- In my view some depreciation should be applied for betterment because the landlord now has newly painted doors and door frames. I consider 50% to be reasonable.
- I therefore order that the tenant pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $500.00. Replacing back door handles and bathroom door handles
- The landlord said that the door handles from the bathroom was removed completely and the door handle from the back door was damaged and hung at a strange angle.
- The landlord produced entry and exit inspection photos proving that the damaged occurred during the tenancy. I consider the damage to be more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord produced an invoice from House the Handyman in the amount of $300.01 to replace the door handles.
- I do not consider that any depreciation is warranted as there has been no improvement to the landlord’s position. I order that the tenants compensate the landlord for the full amount of the invoice. Replacing net curtains, curtains and sundry items
- The landlord said that the curtains in the lounge and the net curtains in the bedrooms and dining room were completely removed, the roller blinds that were sitting in behind the net curtains in all of the bedrooms were covered in mould and had water stains.
- The landlord produced photos showing the curtains in place at the start of the tenancy but missing in the exit inspection photos. The landlord also produced photos of the condition of the blinds at the end of the tenancy which show mould and stains, and referred me to the entry inspection report which refers to the blind as being clean and undamaged.
- The landlord has proved that the tenant removed the various curtains and that the blinds have become dirty/damaged during the tenancy.
- The landlord has replaced the curtains in the lounge and the net curtains in the bedrooms and dining room. I was told that the landlord had not installed new roller blinds but had installed curtains instead.
- The landlord purchased new tracks, hooks, nets, hooks and curtains and has installed them himself. The landlord produced numerous receipts from Bunnings and spotlight for new curtains and hooks.
- The total amount of the invoices claimed is $1,285.23.
- The landlord did not have any information as to the age of the curtains and blinds. The landlord now has new curtains for all of the windows. As the curtains and blinds were not new at the start of the tenancy I consider that some depreciation is required and estimate 50% to be reasonable.
- I therefore order that the tenant compensate the landlord in the amount of $642.61. Loss of rent
- The landlord successfully claimed against their insurance policy for six weeks of rent as they had to do repairs and advertise the property for rent. The owner of the property has also transferred to a new agent. I was told that the property was not rented again until 5 October 2024.
- The landlord claims the insurance excess of $650.00.
- The Tribunal can order compensation for loss of rent where repairs are so extensive that a landlord is unable to rent the property while those repairs are undertaken.
- However in this case there was no evidence proving that the loss of rent for such a long period was attributable to the repairs and not to the landlord undertaking additional renovations and changing agents. The repairs in this case were not particularly extensive and would generally be completed in a one-two week time frame.
- I do not consider that the landlord has proved their claim for loss of rent.
- This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
- Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited acting as agent for Jamie Dally has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.
- The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to an order for name suppression as they are not the successful party.