Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5043430 — Property damage
Decided 31 Mar 2025 · Published 31 Mar 2025 · Application 5043430
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. 3.
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy ended on 1 October 2024.
- The Tenants’ application seeks refund of the bond and partial refund of power costs.
- The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, and repair costs.
- The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 12 February 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hargood represented the landlord. Tenant application Power
- There is a minor dwelling on the property that is also tenanted.
- The minor dwelling has a check meter.
- Ms Hargood experienced some difficulties with calculating the tenants’ power use, due to issues around calculating “low power usage” charges and the application of GST. By Ms Hargood’s own admission, the tenants were given confusing information and a myriad of revised invoices.
- Apart from the confusing invoices, the tenants’ main concern in respect of power is that in January 2024 they discovered that the garage for the minor dwelling was linked to their meter and not to the check meter.
- When this came to light, the landlord corrected it very quickly. There was then a casual conversation between the owner and [Tenant 1] about the power that [Tenant 1] had paid for the garage. The owner says that he and [Tenant 1] agreed to have a BBQ and that he would provide the meat and beer. The BBQ did not proceed, but the owner did provide meat and beer to [Tenant 1] (to the value of $139.10, according to the owner) and he considered the matter concluded.
- [Tenant 1] said that he appreciated the meat and beer and accepted it by way of an apology, but he did not consider that it was appropriate or complete reimbursement for the power that he had been paying since March 2023.
- In March 2024 the landlord had a separate main meter installed for the minor dwelling, which is a complete and permanent solution.
- [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] said that as soon as the property was put onto two main meters in March 2024, their power bills dropped substantially. They provided evidence at the hearing to support this.
- There was also an issue with the hot water cylinder in December 2023. When the tenants received their power bill for that month, it was extremely high.
- In summary, there are three issues of concern: a. That the tenants may have been incorrectly charged for power over the time that Ms Hargood was having difficulties with the calculations. b. That the tenants paid for power used in the cabin garage. c. That the hot water cylinder problem in December 2023 caused an unusually high power bill.
- In terms of these three issues: a. It seems probable that there is some inaccuracy in the amount that the tenants paid, but I accept that Ms Hargood has made all reasonable efforts to correct this, and in her calculation she has waived and minimised charges where possible. If there is an inaccuracy over this period, it is likely that the tenants have underpaid rather than overpaid. b. This is proven, but the amount that the tenants have paid is impossible to calculate. c. This is proven to a “more likely than not” standard.
- My finding is that it is appropriate to make a small reimbursement of power costs on the grounds that the “overs and unders” are impossible to precisely calculate, but it is probable that the tenants have overpaid power to some extent.
- I will award $250. Landlord application Rent and water
- The tenants accepted the claims for rent and water. Cleaning
- Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 1
- The claim seeks $290.95 for cleaning and $280.00 for carpet cleaning. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
- Ms Hargood provided photographs showing the premises at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants disputed the cleaning claim on the grounds that they believed that they left the house in the same state of cleanliness as the landlord provided it at the beginning of their tenancy.
- Ms Hargood also provided entry photographs.
- From a tenancy law perspective, the obligation on tenants is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, not to leave it in the same condition that it was provided to them in. However, I accept that the tenants can legitimately use the condition of the premises at the start as a gauge of the landlord’s expectations in terms of what is “reasonably” clean and tidy.
- Having reviewed the photographs provided I am satisfied that the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy – not perfect, but reasonably clean. At the end the premises were generally clean, but a few areas required more attention to bring them to that reasonably clean and tidy standard.
- Overall, the landlord’s claim for $290.95 for end of tenancy cleaning is fair.
- Similarly, the carpet was not in perfect condition at the beginning of the tenancy, but the end of tenancy photographs show some additional stains, sufficient to justify the claim for professional carpet cleaning.
- The tenants had professional carpet cleaning done before they left, but Ms Hargood said that when she saw the carpet it did not appear that professional cleaning had been done. She said that the carpet cleaner that she engaged also shared this view. Unfortunately for the tenants it appears that the contractor that they paid for did not do a good job.
- However, the claim for replacement of the carpet in the lounge and one bedroom (to the amount of the insurance excess) is not proven on the evidence provided. The photographs show the condition of the carpet before professional cleaning but I have no evidence of the condition of the carpet after the cleaning was done. Therefore, I cannot know whether replacement of the carpet was justified. Damage
- Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the period of the tenancy.
- Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
- The landlord seeks: a. Wall repairs $1634.30. b. Soffit repair $438.25. c. Garage door lock repair $316.50. d. Vinyl repair $448.50. e. “Light bulbs not working” $143.50.
- The tenants accepted the claims for damage to the vinyl and to the garage door lock. This was accidental damage that happened during their tenancy.
- They disputed aspects of the claims for wall repairs, soffit repair, and lightbulbs. Wall repairs
- The claim seeks $1,634.30 for repairs and painting of walls per an invoice from Teahon Property Management.
- [The tenant/s] said that: a. There was some pre-existing, minor damage to walls in the nature of dents, scrapes, etc. b. Some additional minor damage occurred during their tenancy, mostly behind doors, tears from 3m hooks, etc. c. [Tenant 1] is a plasterer and he plastered most of the damage (new and old) before the end of the tenancy. d. They were willing to do further ‘tidy up’ and patch painting of the repairs if the landlord wanted, but the landlord didn’t allow them to return after the end of the tenancy.
- Landlords are not obliged to allow tenants to return to the premises after the end of the tenancy.
- The photographs available to me broadly support the tenants’ summary of wall damage.
- The tenants are liable for the cost of repairing the damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurred during their tenancy, but they are not liable for the cost of repairing pre-existing damage, and they are not liable for fair wear and tear. Some amount of minor marks and furniture scuffs is within the parameters of fair wear and tear. The damage from door handles and 3m hook tears are beyond fair wear and tear.
- Applying these principles, I will hold the tenants liable for half of the wall repair and painting cost claimed. Soffit repair
- On one part of the house, a corner of the roof extends over the driveway.
- There is damage to the soffit in that corner.
- [Tenant 1] acknowledged that he accidentally hit it with a furniture truck at the beginning of the tenancy with sufficient force to crack the board of the soffit. [Tenant 1] told the owner directly about this (they were friends). Ms Hargood was not aware of the damage.
- [Tenant 1] said that the damage shown in the end of tenancy photographs is substantially worse than what he caused. There is a large crack in the soffit and part of it has fallen out. [Tenant 1] speculated that something else may have hit it.
- The location of this part of the roof does make it somewhat vulnerable to damage by trucks. I understand that it was damaged and repaired before this tenancy.
- I accept [Tenant 1]’s statement that the damage caused when he hit the roof corner at the beginning of the tenancy was noticeably less that the damage at the end. This is supported by the fact that Ms Hargood did not notice any damage during her inspections.
- The repair cost is reasonable.
- Balancing these considerations my finding is that the tenants are liable for half of the repair cost claimed. Lightbulbs
- Ms Hargood provided a quote from Teahon Property Maintenance for various work including $143.50 for “replace the eight lightbulbs”.
- Tenants are liable for careless and intentional damage to the premises during the tenancy. Tenants are not liable for chattels that wear out through ordinary use.
- A lightbulb wearing out through ordinary use is a landlord cost.
- At the hearing Ms Hargood clarified that the cost includes some electrical repairs because the light fittings were twisted. [Tenant 1] said that some of the light fittings were of the ‘swivel’ type, and he was not aware of any damage.
- No evidence was provided of the damage.
- This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
- Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and I will award both parties the filing fee. 2
- The tenants sought name suppression. The tenants were successful or partially successful in respect of many of the disputed issues in the proceedings. On that basis I will award name suppression to the tenants. 3
- The proven amount owed to the landlord exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.