Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5016528 — Property damage at 107A Halswell Road, Hillmorton, Christchurch 8025
Decided 5 Nov 2024 · Published 5 Nov 2024 · Application 5016528
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Elisa Muao to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited trading as Harcourts Grenadier Rent Shop as agent for Vijay Gajjar $1,345.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The claims for the repair of spouting and a bathroom shower plumbing repair are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5474633-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited trading as Harcourts Grenadier Rent Shop: $1,345.00 Elisa Muao: $535.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Toa and Ms Lattimore represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 (RTA).
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, I have awarded compensation only for reasonable cleaning, not the full invoiced cost of cleaning (2 invoices and a separate invoice for cleaning the cooking hobs) amounting to $697.20.
- A tenant only needs to leave the premises reasonably clean. Here, the tenant failed to do that but only by a small margin. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. I have awarded the landlord compensation of $200.00 for cleaning overall.
- The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord accepts that there was some (but not much) rubbish at the start of the tenancy, some bricks and wood. But comparing the photos from the inspection at the start of the tenancy with the photos at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish. I award the landlord compensation of $200.00 for groundwork and rubbish removal.
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.
- The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for damage to a door. I have allowed that claim by consent.
- I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the repair cost of damage to a section of spouting. I accept the tenant’s evidence that neither she nor her children caused that damage. It likely occurred during a storm when part of the spouting at a joint that was tied together came away.
- I dismiss the landlord’s claim for a bathroom shower plumbing repair. I find that the tenant did not cause damage to the shower drain cover or to the plumbing/drain beneath it.
- The tenant accepted a claim for damage to wardrobe doors, but she did not accept a claim for the replacement cost of shelving in a unit which she says was not there at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord’s photos in the pre-tenancy report show the shelving intact; it was missing at the end of the tenancy. I find this claim proved.
- The landlord has claimed for damage to the kitchen cabinetry. I find that the tenant is liable for some of the damage only. The damage to the area beneath the oven is more likely the result of heat damage as the tenant said it was. The landlord has claimed the insurance excess of $750.00. The excess is the maximum amount an insured landlord can claim for damage. I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 only.
- The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos, with deductions made as explained above.
- As the application is mostly successful the tenant must pay the landlord’s filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought a name suppression order. However, as her defence to the application is not wholly or mostly successful, I make no name suppression order – see section 95A RTA.