Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5201258 — Cleanliness at 22A Lovelock Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615
Decided 5 May 2025 · Published 5 May 2025 · Application 5201258
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
Order
- Karla Michelle Mattson must pay My Property Manager Limited As Agent For Leah & Jason Nairn $2,607.72 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the video conference hearing represented by Ms Morland. The tenant did not join the video conference, The Tribunal also attempted to telephone her for the hearing, but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 13 February 2025 after the tenant gave notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The carpets were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy and required stain and deodorising treatment because of pet urine.
- The amount ordered is 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 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. In this case, the landlord’s insurance excess is $1200.
- 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 bathroom floor vinyl was discoloured yellow in one area. The landlord is not sure what caused the damage but noted that the tenant had a rubbish bin sitting in the area. It is not clear whether the damage was caused by the tenant carelessly or intentionally or whether it might be accidental. In any event, the landlord has not repaired the vinyl nor obtained a quote for doing so. Because the cost to remedy the problem is not proved, there is no basis for awarding the insurance excess. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed.
- The living room curtain was discoloured and could not be cleaned. It requires replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided a quote of $570 to replace the curtain.
- 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 curtain at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan. The curtain was two years old when the tenancy ended. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that curtains should last 8 years in a rental property. Therefore, I have reduced the claim by 25% to $427.50 for depreciation.
- As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.