Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4889300 — Rent arrears at 137 Deans Avenue, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011
Decided 30 Sept 2024 · Published 30 Sept 2024 · Application 4889300
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- The tenants must pay the landlords the bond in the sum of $2,120 calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3900933-004) to Irelands Real Estate Limited as Agent for Ms T Chen immediately.
- Dante Urwin must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited as Agent for Ms T Chen $347.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The tenants’ application is dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord’s representatives and Nick Jacobs attended the hearing.
- Mr Jacobs and Mr Gilson have applied for their share of the bond.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The Tribunal made an order in relation to these applications on 2 August 2024. This order should be read together with the earlier order. The Tenants’ Application
- The Tribunal earlier found that the two applicant tenants validly withdrew from the tenancy after 5 May 2024 under the family violence provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenancy of the remaining two tenants ended on 11 June.
- The earlier decision set out the Tribunal’s preliminary view that the bond should be available in full to meet any valid claims by the landlord to the end of the tenancy. It should be noted that when the two applicant tenants withdrew from the tenancy, it did not end the tenancy.
- I adjourned the applications partly to allow the applicant tenants to make any further submissions on the bond issue. After hearing further from Mr Jacobs, I can see no reason to depart from my preliminary view. The bond should be available in full to meet any valid claims by the landlord in relation to the tenancy, including for claims that arose after the applicant tenants withdrew from the tenancy.
- The main reason for that is that landlords are entitled to have the security of the bond in full, regardless of who has contributed to paying the bond and regardless of which tenants are personally responsible for the landlord’s claims. Landlords do not know who has contributed to the bond and it is not the landlord’s concern. Nor is it the concern of the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues between tenants.
- The applicant tenants should not be liable, beyond the amount of the bond, for the consequences of any breach that occurred after they withdrew from the tenancy.
- Given that the outcome of the landlord’s application, which is discussed below, is that the bond is paid to the landlord, the tenants’ application must be dismissed. Rent
- The landlord produced a rent statement to prove the amount of rent arrears owing when the tenancy ended being $952.13. The Tenants’ Other Obligations
- 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.
- Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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. The Landlord’s Other Claims
- There was damage to a wall and glass during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
- The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and the bins were full of rubbish.
- The landlord provided invoices to prove the costs arising from the tenants’ breach of their obligations as shown in the order.
- Mr Jacobs said that he attempted to arrange to clean the premises after the tenancy ended. The landlord was not obliged to give him that opportunity and, in any case, I find that it was no fault of the landlord that he was not able to do so. Apportionment
- The Tribunal is not usually concerned with apportionment of liability between tenants because the liability of joint tenants is joint and several. That means that each tenant is liable in full for the costs arising from breach of the tenants’ obligations regardless of who is personally responsible for the breach.
- But that principle rests on the premise that the tenants were all tenants when the breach occurred. A person will not usually be liable for a breach if they were not a tenant when the breach occurred.
- In this case there were several changes of tenants during the tenancy. Mr Urwin was one of the early tenants. Mr Jacobs joined in January 2023. Mr Kuru (Phillips) came after Mr Jacobs. Mr Gilson joined in September 2023.
- The landlord argued that the tenants who joined later were liable for preexisting damage to the premises because they were sent the ingoing inspection report and confirmed that they were liable for any damage not shown in that report. The landlord said that they expected the tenants to sort out the apportionment of liability between themselves when the change occurred. But the landlord was not able to produce any documents to support that.
- The Change of Tenant documents signed by the parties, state that the ingoing tenant will assume the obligations under the Act and the outgoing tenant will remain liable for any prior breach. That is consistent with the principle that tenants are liable for breaches that occur only when they tenants.
- I accept that the wall damage for which the landlord has been compensated occurred before Mr Jacobs became a tenant and so he and the subsequent tenants are not liable for it. Of the named tenants, only Mr Urwin is liable for it.
- I also find that Mr Jacobs and Mr Gilson are not liable for the end of tenancy costs of cleaning, garden work and the bins. They were the responsibility of the tenants who remained at the end of the tenancy.
- It follows that only Mr Urwin is liable in full to the landlord. The liability of the other tenants does not exceed the bond and so they can have no liability beyond the bond. Therefore, only Mr Urwin has any residual liability.
- It follows that after the bond is paid to the landlord, the residual liability must be paid by Mr Urwin. Filing Fee
- The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Result
- The bond will be paid in full to the landlord and Mr Urwin must pay the remaining liability. Suppression
- There is no justification for a suppression order in this case and so the applicant tenants’ request for suppression is refused.