Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4893644 — Cleanliness at 27 Bruce Street, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010
Decided 30 Aug 2024 · Published 30 Aug 2024 · Application 4893644
Mixed / unclear
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- Joanne Charlotte Cornish to pay Amtos Realty Services Limited $2,868.37 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount (NZD) General Rubbish Disposal$785.00 Additional Rubbish & Green Waste Removal$1,377.88 Interior Cleaning$400.00 Lock Replacement$285.05 Filing Fee Reimbursement$20.44 Total Award$2,868.37
Reasons
- The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not. When a party does not attend a hearing, the Tribunal does its best to test the Landlord’s evidence.
- However, in most cases, the Landlord’s evidence will proceed unchallenged because there is little if no other evidence from the other “side” which could be used to contradict it.
- The Landlord has applied for compensation, 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 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 was hoarding rubbish and other items at the property and the tenancy which led to the tenancy being terminated. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord’s photographs show rubbish stockpiled inside and outside the garage and home and strewn across and hidden beneath an overgrown backyard. The photographs also show the messy and unclear interior state of the premises.
- Accordingly, I approve the following claims: a. General Rubbish Disposal $785.00 b. BT Bobcat - rubbish & green waste removal $1377.88 c. Cactus Cleaning $400.00
- The Tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord had a contractor replace the locks. I approve the Landlord’s claim for reimbursement of those costs: $285.05
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 Landlord claims $172.50 for repairs to holes in the walls. I cannot see any pictures of holes, other than one in the garage and the invoice relates to several other repairs, including for a bathroom towel rail, and I do not have evidence as to the condition of the towel rail before and after the tenancy. I decline this claim.
- Because Amtos Realty Services Limited As Agent For Neville Hannah has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.