Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5070068 — Cleanliness at 112C Linton Street, West End, Palmerston North 4410
Decided 30 Jan 2025 · Published 30 Jan 2025 · Application 5070068
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
- [One of the tenants] must pay the Unique Realty Limited $1,410.00 immediately.
- [The tenants] to pay Unique Realty Limited $1,375.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Unique Realty Limited: $1,375.75 [The tenants, excluding one]: $964.25
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
- Jodi-anne Taiapa attended for the landlord.
- [Three of the tenants] attended for the tenants. [A tenant] attended for [another tenant]. [Another tenant] did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The tenancy ended on 8 October 2024. The landlord has applied for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, any payment over of the bond. Background
- There was a tenancy in place at the premises on 27 November 2019. However, tenants have come and gone over that time. None of these tenants are original tenants. Three of the tenants’ tenancies began in October 2022, another tenant had been a tenant earlier than that, but left and returned in about October 2022, so her tenant began then too. The remaining tenants became tenants in 2023.
- The tenants are not liable for damage occurring prior to their joining the tenancy. The landlord regards the addition of a tenant as a mere variation of the tenancy. I consider that apropos the new tenant, the tenancy commences upon them becoming a tenant. Even if I am wrong about that, I would not find the tenants for pre-existent damage at the premises. It would be inequitable to find the new tenant liable. Otherwise, a newly-arrived could be subject to ruinous costs not of their making.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
- The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord claims $580.50 for the carpets not being left clean. I decrease that amount to account to $400.00 liability for the fact that the landlord benefitted from having all of the carpets cleaned, not just the stained areas.
- The landlord claims $724.50 for the cost of cleaning the premises. The photographs do not show uncleanliness justifying that amount. Bearing in mind the landlord has treated the occupation of the house as an ongoing tenancy lasting for five years, it should anticipate that it would need to undertake significant cleaning before the next tenancy. I award $300.00 for the cost of cleaning.
Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims for damage to bathroom vanity and damage caused by Police when they attended the premises in response to complaints about one of the tenants. Legal principles
- 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. 1
- 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). 2
- 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). 3 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 4
- 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. 5
- 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. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 2 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 4 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 5 RTA, s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Vanity damage
- The landlord provided photographs showing the vanity installed new in 2020 and the vanity with significant damage after the tenancy was ended.
- The tenants insist the damage was present when they became tenants. The landlord could not produce photographs to disprove that submission.
- As mentioned in the “Background” subheading section above, the tenancies for these tenants did not commence until they became tenants. Even if I am wrong in that, it would be unfair to find them liable for pre-existing damage. In that regard, the Tribunal must “determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities”. 7
- I am not satisfied that the damage occurred during these tenants’ tenancies.
- The claim for damage to the vanity is not allowed. Police attendance damage
- Police and one of the tenants caused damage costing $2,440.00 when Police attended the premises in response to complaints by neighbours. The tenant resisted Police attempts to restrain her.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. I am not satisfied that this tenant was not careless in connection to the damage. There is an argument that Police should reimburse the landlord, but it has refused to do so.
- Ms Taiapa submitted the landlord’s insurer would treat each item of damage as a separate event. In my view, the damage should be treated a single event. It would be artificial do treat it as otherwise given it all occurred during Police’s attendance on one occasion over one continuous event.
- The landlord’s excess is $1,800.00. Tenants are jointly and severally liable for the damage. However, it would be unfair to make all the tenants pay for this. It was outside their control, and they were not careless. 8 The Tribunal order the tenant concerned to pay for it but not the others. This tenant has a claim to $390.00 of the bond. The Tribunal will direct the Bond Centre to pay her portion of the bond towards the excess.
- The tenant must still pay the balance of $1,410.00. 7 See RTA, s 85. 8 Ibid. Bond
- The Bond Centre is directed to pay out the bond in accordance with the Tribunal’s monetary orders. Non-publication
- The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of any party not be published. 9
- This claim arises primarily because of the tenants being uncertain of their obligation to pay for the damage caused by previous tenants and due to the damage caused by Police when attending the premises to deal with one of the tenants who may have been having a mental health crisis.
- Publication would unfairly jeopardise five of the tenants’ future tenancy prospects because understandable confusion about their obligations. The other tenant may have been suffering from mental health problems. I consider it would not be in the public interest to publish the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord is not adversely affected by an order for non-publication in favour of the tenants.