Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5184991 — Rent arrears at 4 Ledger Lane, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081
Decided 18 Jun 2025 · Published 18 Jun 2025 · Application 5184991
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Order
- Suzanne McLaughlin to pay Champagne Homes Limited $2,606.67 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
- 00 Total award$2,606.67 Bond$2,606.67$2,193.33
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (5707781-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Champagne Homes Limited: $2,606.67 Suzanne McLaughlin: $2,193.33
- The application for the repair of the insinkerator and for relacing light bulbs is dismissed.
- The application for the cost of gas bottle replacement is withdrawn.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gavin (with the Tribunal’s consent) represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for a refund of part of her bond. The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and for the replacement cost of a fern. I have allowed those claims (marked *) by consent.
- The landlord withdrew the claim for the replacement cost of gas bottles.
- I heard evidence from both parties and from 3 witnesses for the tenant: her son Ethan, his friend Ms Page, and the tenant’s friend Mr Johnson. Background
- The tenancy started on 5 January 2024 and ended on 31 January 2025.
- The premises comprise an attractive house and garage. The rent was $1,200.00 per week which reflects the nature of the property.
- At the start of the tenancy the tenant pointed out issues that required attention, including some maintenance issues, light bulbs that were not working, and the carpets being unclean. Soon after the tenancy started, the landlord had the carpets professionally cleaned, although the tenant had them done again as she was not satisfied with the work done. The light bulbs were replaced, but the tenant said that the electrician disabled some bulbs and could not reach others, so they were left.
- The property also had an external pool. The tenancy agreement specifically states that the pool was to be maintained by the tenant.
- At the end of the tenancy, the landlord claimed costs from the bond that the tenant has disputed. Statutory provisions
- A tenant’s responsibilities are set out in section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- 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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- A tenant is only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, not clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately commence, or clean to a ‘motel standard’.
- The Tribunal does not decide claims for cleaning on the subjective opinion of the parties, but on an objective evaluation of the evidence.
- The landlord’s representative conceded that the tenant had a high standard of cleanliness (a point made by the tenant’s witnesses as well).
- However, the landlord’s evidence establishes that some additional cleaning was required, though it was not much. That is reflected in the invoice cost of $90.00. I find this claim proved.
- Also proved is the claim for carpet cleaning. The photos produced in evidence show that there were stains on some areas of carpet that the landlord reasonably had cleaned. Again, the required work was minimal and is reflected in the invoiced cost of $150.00.
- I find that some garden maintenance work was required. The photographic evidence establishes that the gardens required some work. However, I have awarded compensation of $200.00 only from the claimed amount.
- The invoice for this work includes the trimming of hedges which is not a tenant responsibility. And the comparative evidence from the beginning and end of the tenancy is not sufficient for the Tribunal to conclude that the work done was solely a tenant responsibility rather than general maintenance of the property.
- The tenancy agreement required the tenant to maintain the pool. I find she is liable for the cleaning cost claimed. The invoice for the work narrates in detail the cleaning that was required.
- I dismiss the claim for the replacement cost of light bulbs. Responsibility for replacing light bulbs is not clear cut. The RTA is silent about it. Here, the landlord’s electrician had to replace light bulbs soon after the tenancy started, an issue highlighted by the tenant.
- The tenant gave evidence that the electrician at that time disabled some lights and was unable to reach others to replace bulbs. She said there were on-going issues with lighting during the tenancy. She noted that the invoice for light bulb replacement did not identify what bulbs needed replacing.
- The Tribunal does not simply award the cost of replacing light bulbs as a matter of course. I some cases it will find the tenant responsible, in other cases not.
- Given the evidential difficulties I have noted, I am not persuaded that light bulb replacement was a tenant responsibility in this case. The claim is dismissed.
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.
- The landlord has 2 claims for damage – the repair of the insinkerator and the repair of the florescent light fitting in the garage (including the replacement of the bulb).
- I find the claim for the repair of the garage lighting fixture and the replacement of the florescent tube proved. The inspection report from the start of the tenancy does not record any damage to the light fitting. The photos at the end of the tenancy shows the damage and the missing bulb.
- The tenant said she was unaware of the damage, but that is not sufficient to displace proof on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
- I dismiss the claim for the repair of the insinkerator. The invoice for this repair is dated 5 March 2025, after a new tenancy had started. The invoice states that the damage would have been caused by food scraps that were left sitting in the unit for a long time.
- The tenant said the unit was working when she vacated the tenancy, and she was unaware of any issue. I do not find that this damage was careless or intentional, more probably inadvertent. If a specific method of operation were required that should have been brought to the tenant’s attention. By testing the unit before she vacated, the tenant did all she reasonably could do. This claim is best viewed as a matter of landlord maintenance. It is dismissed. Result
- The landlord’s successful claims amount to $2606.67 including the filing fee of $27.00.
- The landlord’s claims for the repair of the insinkerator and for the replacement cost of lights bulbs are dismissed.
- The bond will be split between the parties - $2,606.67 to the landlord and $2,193.33 to the tenant.
- Neither party sought an order for name suppression.