Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4762057 — Cleanliness at 370 Boundary Road, Willowby, RD 4, Ashburton 7774
Decided 23 Feb 2024 · Published 23 Feb 2024 · Application 4762057
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- Stacy-Ann Barbara Wells must pay PGG Wrightson Real Estate Limited as agent for the owner $3,227.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $950.99 (5479617-001) to PGG Wrightson Real Estate Limited as agent for the owner immediately.
- The application for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Prendergast and Ms Leggatt represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 their goods, 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 (RTA).
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return all the keys.
- The tenant did not remove her goods when she vacated. The landlord had to place the goods into storage in the garage.
- Ms Prendergast and Ms Leggatt gave evidence that they spent at least 28 hours removing the goods into storage. They based their claim for compensation on a quote for doing the work. Reimbursement of their time equates to more than the amount of the quote they received. I have awarded them compensation based on the quoted amount.
- The garage was later broken into, and the lock had to be replaced. Children’s belongings and goods from the freezer were taken.
- I need not make a finding about who broke in. However, the landlord is entitled to claim the cost of replacing the garage lock because it had a duty to store the tenant’s goods. That the storage was secure was to her benefit also.
- The tenant said she was denied access to remove her goods. I do not accept that. The evidence given by the landlord’s representatives establishes that they went to considerable lengths to facilitate the removal and return of the tenant’s goods.
- The Tribunal made a possession order effective on 27 November 2023. Despite that, the tenant did not vacate the tenancy and was evicted on 1 December 2023.
- It was her responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish and all her goods. That she did not do so means she is liable for the landlord’s costs the result of her not complying with her statutory responsibilities as a tenant.
- I award the landlord the cost of filing the warrant for eviction. There is no process other than this by which that fee can be recovered.
- The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, quotes, photos, and by the evidence both parties gave at the hearing.
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.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a bathroom door was damaged and has to be replaced. There was a hole in the ceiling that has to be repaired.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the door. The claim was initially made for $150.00. However, the quoted price is $450.00. The door has to be replaced and cannot be repaired.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I dismiss the landlord’s claim for loss of rent compensation. The Tribunal only awards loss of rent compensation in certain limited situations. This is not one of them.
- Often there are delays between one tenancy and another due to repairs and other work required as a consequence of tenant breaches of their responsibilities. Generally, these delays are seen as part of the business of being a landlord and that is how the Tribunal regards this claim.
- As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.
- Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.