Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5026431 — Property damage
Decided 11 Apr 2025 · Published 11 Apr 2025 · Application 5026431
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
for this matter. On 10 February 2025 the tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal in accordance with s56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). A possession date was fixed for 3 March 2025.
- The landlord had also sought compensation to repair damage identified at the property, however, at the previous hearing the parties agreed by consent that the tenant would have time to rectify the damaged caused, prior to her vacating the property.
- This included all damage that had been itemised in the relevant 14-day notice, including repairing damage to the walls, internal door, back entrance, back door and garage exterior, re-hang missing kitchen cupboards, and cleaning to walls and doors.
- As a result of that agreement, the previous hearing was adjourned part heard, for later consideration of any remaining claims for compensation for damage.
- The landlord submits that none of the required items have been repaired and claims for all damage caused to the property during 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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The landlord says that significant cleaning and gardening was required to the property. The landlord also claims for carpet cleaning due to staining throughout the property. Photographs have been provided.
- The landlord has provided evidence of the cleaning and gardening costs of $586.50 and carpet cleaning of $218.50.
- I am satisfied from reviewing the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- In addition, the tenant was required to leave the property with a full supply (2 cubic metre) of firewood, as was provided at the commencement of the tenancy. No firewood was left, and the landlord claims $300.00 for this.
- 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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. The landlord is insured; however, the policy has an excess applicable of $550.00 for each individual claim and therefore claiming insurance was not financially viable.
- 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.
- The landlord claims for damage to the walls, doors (including locks), kitchen cupboards, exterior, oven door and cracked tiles to the fireplace hearth. The landlord also claims for carpet replacement and to remove a makeshift shed and fencing that was installed at the rear of the property.
- The landlord advises that the professional carpet cleaning was unable to remove the large stains throughout the property, including what appeared to be burn marks and grease or oil stains, and the carpet needed to be replaced.
- Photographs have been provided from the commencement of the tenancy, during the tenancy and after the tenancy has ended. The evidence proves that significant damage has been caused to the property during the tenancy. On balance, the evidence provided and submitted at the hearing shows that some of the damage was intentional, particularly to the walls, doors and floors.
- The landlord has provided quotes and invoices as follows: a. Broken oven door $575.92. b. Quality Services Invoice (includes walls, doors, locks and removal of temporary shed and fencing) $7,188.43. c. Harrisons quote for carpet replacement $4,400.00. d. Quality services quote (includes kitchen cupboard remedial work and door frames) $2,144.75.
- The following damage was caused both intentionally and carelessly during the tenancy: Walls, doors (including locks), kitchen cupboards, exterior, oven door, fireplace hearth and carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord advised that the carpet was almost new at the commencement of the tenancy, however some wear and tear would be expected due to the tenancy term, and I have reduced the amount ordered to $2,000.00.
- All amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- The bond has already been refunded to the landlord, and this is deducted from the total amount owed as a result.
- Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 11 April 2025