Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5067910 — Property damage
Decided 19 Dec 2024 · Published 19 Dec 2024 · Application 5067910
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
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 landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Rarangi Leonie Koa Webber must pay [The landlord/s] $39.07, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to Team Group Rentals Limited.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Although the tenancy is in the name of the tenant and her daughter, who both attended the hearing, the tenant explained that her daughter is intellectually impaired. The property manager at the hearing had been unaware of that. There was no objection to my suggestion that any orders made would not be against her.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The onus of proof is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
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. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord submitted an invoice from Woodleys Maintenance for a number of items, including “remove and dispose of all rubbish, including side garage, under deck, lean to shed and little bits around the property” and carpet clean.
- There was also a cleaning invoice for $675.00 for cleaning all inside windows and frames, ducting throughout and cleaning lights switches and fittings, vacuuming including under bottom boards of wardrobes, washing the floor, walls and ceiling, cleaning the laundry vanity, show, vanity, toilet, shelving, kitchen cupboards, benches, range hood, sink, heatpump.
- The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. She is not required to prepare the premises for the next tenant. The property appears in need of some sprucing and so it is difficult to know well it would look after a thorough clean. From the photos of the end of tenancy inspection, the overall state of the premises appeared reasonably clean and tidy.
- However, although the tenant had done some cleaning, it was evident from the close-up photos that there were a number of horizontal flat surfaces that had not been cleaned. Fly scat should have been cleaned off the heatpump and other easy to reach areas. The sinks and benches required a further clean.
- The tenant is ordered to pay for most of the cleaning bill. A deduction of $100 has been made.
- The garage had not been swept out. Some rubbish had accumulated under the deck. The gap between the deck and the ground is only a few inches deep. The landlord said, you could fit your arm under there. The tenant was not aware of the rubbish there. There were no photos of this area in the pre-inspection photos. The landlord has not proved that the tenant was responsible for this rubbish. Some deduction has therefore been made from the Woodley’s maintenance bill, discussed below.
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.
- The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage: a. Oven door loose:$180.62 invoice b. Garage door lock:$319.11 invoice c. Repair back door frame$744.05 invoice d. Washing line: $499.00 quote e. Various repairs $877.34 invoice from Woodleys Maintenance Oven door
- The tenant accepted that she had taken the oven door apart to clean inside the window and it may not have been put back together properly. She is ordered to pay $180.62 for the oven door repair. Garage door
- The landlord produced photos showing the bar that runs across the garage door, forming part of the garage door lock was missing at the end of the tenancy. Pre tenancy photos show it in place. The tenant does not recall breaking it. I find it more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is the result of a careless action of the tenant or someone there with her permission. The order for $319.11 is proved. Door frame
- The damage to the door frame is shown in the photos as a long split in the frame. The tenant said that this was as result of the door slamming in the wind. It is a very thick heavy wooden door (about 4 inches thick). She told the landlord about this.
- The landlord said that when it was repaired, the tradesman said that the damage could not have been caused by the wind slamming the door.
- The tradesman did not give evidence and there was no statement from him. Therefore that evidence is hearsay and has little weight compared to the tenant’s evidence.
- The onus is on the landlord to prove that the damage to the door frame was caused by the careless or intentional action of herself or someone there with her permission. The landlord has not discharged that onus. Therefore no order is made for the damage to the door frame. Washing line
- The landlord provided a quote of $499.00 for a replacement washing line. The washing line was a small rotary one. It was found lying under some green waste in the shed, collapsed, with the concrete attached to the bottom.
- The tenant said that it broke and that they had pulled it out and had strung up some rope instead.
- From the photographs, the washing line does not look the most robust type, and it is plausible that the washing line collapsed through no particular action by anyone. However, moving the washing line is an intentional act. The tenant should also have let the landlord know about the washing line and stored it carefully so that no further damage or soiling occurred. It is possible that the washing line could have been repaired. Under section 40(1)(d) the tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs.
- It is reasonable that the tenant should make a contribution to a replacement washing line. The age of the washing line is unknown. A replacement line of the same sort is $499. That is based on a quote. The landlord may replace it with a much cheaper option. I order the tenant to contribute $50.00 towards a replacement washing line. Woodleys Maintenance
- The total invoice for $1,021.47 from Woodleys Maintenance includes a number of matters. The landlord seeks compensation of $877.34 from the tenant in relation to the following: a. the rubbish removal referred to above, including the garage, shed, under deck and little bits around the property. b. Replacement roller blind and curtain, which the landlord had specified was $57.00. c. Remove corner plaster in bedroom 3 (stuffed with newspaper). Cut and install small gib. d. Plaster and sand small hole in bedroom 2. e. Install bracket under broken bedroom shelf. f. Carpet clean. g. Replacement of toilet seat.
- The tenant accepted she should pay $57.50 for a replacement roller blind and curtain. She was also responsible for some damage caused in the bedroom by her grandson. A hole had to be plastered and sanded.
- The photos showed that the garage needed to be swept out and there were little bits of rubbish around the property.
- The tenant said that the damage to the corner of bedroom 3 was caused by rats. She said that they set traps and told the landlord. The landlord said that the only record was that they were told about mice.
- The state of the corner of the bedroom is consistent with damage caused by rats. However, the tenant should have ensured that this was brought to the landlord’s attention so that they could take proper steps to maintain the property. The tenant is partially responsible for this damage.
- The tenant did not know how the bracket under the bedroom shelf was broken. It is difficult to know whether this was fair wear and tear.
- The tenant was also unaware of the broken toilet seat. She had put a new toilet seat on the toilet. The landlord explained that it was the wrong size and because it did not fit properly, the attachments were broken. The tenant is therefore responsible for the replacement toilet seat.
- According to the exit inspection, there were some small stains on the carpet in the lounge and it smelt. The photos show two small marks on the carpets. The other areas had hard floors. I find that the tenant is responsible for having the carpet cleaned.
- I find that the tenant is not fully responsible for all rubbish removal, the full cost of the corner plaster in bedroom 3 and have made a small reduction of $150 to the amount claimed. She must pay $727.34.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the landlord’s name.