Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5253619 — Cleanliness at 75 William Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812
Decided 9 Jul 2025 · Published 9 Jul 2025 · Application 5253619
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- Natasha Rose Stephens must pay W Thompson And Company Limited - As Agent For Titi Aroha Tihu Jimmy Michael Shane Patterson & Ruixue Deng $13,179.23 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Mrs Duncan represented the applicant.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The bond has been refunded to the landlord however I shall include this in the calculations for clarity.
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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and the invoice for this clean up is proven.
- The curtains required replacement due to the methamphetamine contamination.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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 damage that occurred during this tenancy was the decontamination required due to the levels of methamphetamine shown in the results obtained from the testing.
- Unfortunately, the landlord did not have the insurance cover to address this level of contamination.
- The tenant accepted that there was methamphetamine use in the property during the tenancy. However, she states that there was a friend that stayed with her and she was unaware that he was using. A tenant however is liable for damage that another person does to the property during that tenant’s time in occupation.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord also claims for six weeks loss of rent. I am satisfied on the evidence that this is reasonable. A positive test result occurred during the end of the tenancy and the subsequent testing and clean up took place very close to the time the tenant moved out. I therefore accept that this claim is proven.
- 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.
- Because W Thompson And Company Limited - As Agent For Titi Aroha Tihu Jimmy Michael Shane Patterson & Ruixue Deng has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.