Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5163531 — Property damage at 25 Ranfurly Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410
Decided 19 May 2025 · Published 19 May 2025 · Application 5163531
- 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 tenants’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay Ann Shipman and Ian Shipman $318.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ann Shipman and Ian Shipman: $318.94 [The tenant/s]: $3,521.06
Reasons
- Three of the tenants, [Tenants A, B, C] attended the hearing. One tenant, [Tenant D] also advised that Tenant B could speak on his behalf.
- Ms Shipman attended the hearing.
- The parties have not been able to agree on the refund of the bond. The tenants applied for release of their bond. The landlord applied for $1,334.73 in compensation. This is made up of 29 individual items. The tenants agreed that they should pay for three items, amounting to $250, but not the remainder.
- The onus of proof is on the landlord to establish her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The tenancy ended on 20 November 2024.
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants say that they did clean the premises. They vacuumed, washed the floors, cleaned the bathrooms and toilets. They cleaned the oven and stove. The landlord led them to believe that the premises were clean.
- The landlord said that although the place appeared reasonably clean and tidy, on further inspection, that was not the case. She said that there was cooking grease on surfaces and chewing gum on the floor. She said that the oven and dishwasher filter were not cleaned and there were ashes left in the fireplace. There was grime and debris in the garage and the basin in the garage had not been cleaned.
- The landlord had photos of the oven, dishwasher, fireplace and garage. She had not photos of the chewing gum on the floor.
- The landlord claimed for a heavy duty limescale removing cleaning product to clean the upstairs toilet but she had no photographs of the toilet.
- The tenants said that they had cleaned the oven and they pointed out the photo produced of the oven was not actually the one from their flat, which the landlord accepted.
- The tenants did not know they had to clean the dishwasher filter or how to do so. They did not accept that the toilet required cleaning. They agreed they had not emptied the ashes from the fireplace or cleaned the basin in the garage.
- Based the photographs provided, I am satisfied that for the most part the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants are not required to leave the premises in immaculate or pristine condition. The landlord must expect to undertake further cleaning and maintenance at the end of a tenancy. That may include cleaning the dishwasher filter, washing net curtains. She has not established that the toilet or floors required further cleaning.
- I order the tenants to pay $60 for two hours’ finishing the sweeping and cleaning for the garage and emptying the ashes and sweeping out the fireplace.
- The landlord has not established that the tenants are responsible for any of the other cleaning that she claimed or for her new telescopic duster, rinseaid, toilet cleaner or any other cleaning products.
- The tenants left a bed behind and a broken sofa. They asked the landlord if the bed could be left and had had understood from her that she would deal with it. They were not expecting to be charged for disposal. They would have attended to it if they had known.
- I find it more likely than not that based on their conversation with the landlord that there was no difficulty with them leaving the bed. However, they also left a broken sofa. The cost of $40 for removal of these items is reasonable and I order the tenants to pay that amount.
- The landlord sought $19.59 for missing light bulbs in the lounge.
- The tenants deny removing any bulbs. The landlady provided no further evidence to establish that the tenants took the light bulbs with them.
- The landlord sought $17.88 for two replacement light tubes on the stairs. The tenants said that at least one was working when they left. It is possible one was not. The landlord has not established that the tubes required replacement because of any wrongdoing on the part of the tenants. Tubes occasionally require replacement. That does not mean that it is a tenant responsibility. This claim is dismissed.
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. Gate
- The landlord claimed $40 for a broken gate and latch. The tenants had no knowledge of this damage. The photo shows an old gate. The landlord said that one of the pickets had come off. The tenants had no knowledge of this. The landlord has not established that the repair required to the gate is anything more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Two walls/fridge shelf
- The tenants accept that they are responsible for three items that were broken during the tenancy: damage to two walls, amounting to $180, and a replacement fridge freezer door shelf, coming to $70.00. Those amounts are ordered. Window box
- The landlord said that the tenants had damaged the wooden lid to the window box. The tenants denied any knowledge of this damage, saying they did not used the window box, and that the split in the lid was due to fair wear and tear.
- I accept that older wooden items sometimes split easily. The landlord has not established that the damage was as a result of any action of the tenants. I find it more likely than not that the damage is because of fair wear and tear. Basket feet $35
- Similarly I consider the missing feet from a basket that sits in the dishwasher is fair wear and tear. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they feet kept popping off. That does not mean that this was caused by the careless or intentional actions of the landlord. Callout fee
- The landlord sought $90 reimbursement for a “false callout fee” for an electrician during the tenancy. She said that the tenants simply needed to flick the fuse switches.
- The tenants said that there were two lights that would not work whenever they turned the lights on. The fuses kept shorting. They would flick the fuse switch up, but it would keep outing. That is why they asked for an electrician.
- According to the invoice from Central Electrical, the call was to “repair light circuit fault, Fit MCB at switch board and a 10 amp MCB”. This came to $32.72, plus a callout fee of $90.00 making a total of $141.13 including GST. It is difficult to see why the tenants are responsible for the callout fee for an electrical fault. This is not a case of an electrician being required because of a fault of the tenants or in one of their appliances. The landlord has not established this claim. Stairway wall
- The landlord sought $50.00 for repair to the stairway wall. tenants deny responsibility for damage to the stairway wall. They say that there were some dents when they moved in. The landlord provided no photographs showing the walls at the start and end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Pantry shelves
- The landlord sought $60 for sanding and painting a pantry shelf, which she said was damaged.
- The tenants denied damaging the pantry shelf.
- The photos show pitting and scuffs. There is no obvious evidence of an incident or misuse of the shelf.
- The fact that a shelf may need repainting at the end of a tenancy does not mean that the tenants have damaged it through careless or intentional action. Scuffs and marks on a pantry shelf often occur with normal use. The tenants are not responsible for redecoration following fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Shower wall $50
- The landlord claimed $50 for repair to the shower wall.
- The tenants denied responsibility for this. They noted that at one stage the shower nozzle was not properly attached and would fall down. The damage is at the same level where the shower rose hung.
- I find it more likely than not that the damage was caused by the shower rose. The landlord has not established that the damage was caused by the careless or intentional actions of the tenant. Shower door
- The tenants deny ripping the seals off the shower door. They say they just came off. The landlord has not established that this was more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Plug and chain
- The landlord claimed $8.00 for time and labour to replace a plug and chain that was missing from the downstairs sink. The tenants did not know anything about this.
- I consider this is a minor matter that forms part of the landlord’s maintenance of their property. No order is made. Other
- The landlord had listed two items which she has not had repaired: Bathroom lino and damaged French doors. She has not established or quantified a loss. These claims are dismissed.
- The landlord also sought $6.50 for photo printing. There is no reason for photos to be printed or paid for by the tenant.
- I have taken into account 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 tenants have been substantially successful and I have decided to suppress their names.