Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4873580 — Property damage at 36 Veronica Place, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051
Decided 20 Jun 2024 · Published 20 Jun 2024 · Application 4873580
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Taani Taufa must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $7,736.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- A claim of $2,300 for carpentry costs was withdrawn at the hearing.
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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
- The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the costs incurred. The amounts ordered are 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.
- Many window and glass panels in doors were damaged during the tenancy. There were also holes in internal walls and doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the costs incurred. The claims for windows/glazing and temporary repairs to secure the premises were proved.
- The landlord claimed $5,750 for painting and associated repair work. The evidence established that three walls and three doors were damaged. The damage was extensive, with large holes in each surface. However, the landlord repainted the entire premises. It said that was more cost effective than patching and repairing. I accept that, per square metre, it may be more cost effective to paint a larger area. I was not persuaded that the actual repair cost for three walls and three doors would have been, at least, $5,750.00. The landlord did not provide any evidence of what the damage would have cost to repair on a standalone basis.
- Having regard to similar damage and awards by the Tribunal, I have ordered the tenant to pay $2,700 for painting ad associated repair costs.
- As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.