Tenancy Tribunal Order – Tenants sublet and left the house a complete mess

I wanted to share with you our latest tenancy tribunal order which left our landlord out of pocket. Carpets in 3 separate rooms were damaged with stains yet we only received 1 insurance excess for the lounge carpet, the adjudicator dismissed the other 2 claims even though we had the carpets cleaned twice and the stains would not come out. This decision completely goes against the last paragraph the adjudicator has written in this order. The tenants did no gardening for the entire time at the property of around 14 months and the landlord received nothing from the tenants towards the $600 gardening invoice. Does this mean tenants no longer have to do any weeding? Lightbulbs had to be replaced as they were missing, we organised for our handyman to do this and we only received the cost of the light bulbs, not the labour, so does this tell us that it is now acceptable to give new tenants a box of light bulbs when they move into to a property and expect them to replace any missing ones themselves. The stove was only 1 year old when these tenants moved in. They did not clean it for the entire 14 month tenancy so at the end of the tenancy our cleaners were unable to remove the baked on grime, at the hearing the adjudicator referred to the stove as "old" he was presented photos of the move in condition report showing the stove in brand new condition so we were awarded the costs for the cleaning and the damage. We discovered the tenants had sublet the property at a routine inspection, what followed was regular inspections every month for the next 6 months trying to get the sub tenants to clean the property. We were stuck with these sub-tenants unable to end a fixed term tenancy during Covid-19 law changes.

Even the best tenancies can go wrong, we chose fantastic tenants for this property but their circumstances changed and it all went horribly wrong for the tenants and for the landlord, they chose the wrong tenants to take over their tenancy, they didn't inform us, they didn't want to give up the house because it was in a specific school zone and they wanted to return to NZ. We had to find a way to manage them out of the tenancy and we did, but unfortunately our landlord ended up out of pocket.

Hollie Joss Property Management Limited Landlord

ORDER

1. No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (3100112014) immediately apportioned as follows:

3. Hollie Joss Property Management Limited: $2,463.76

Tenant: $456.24

[2021] NZTT North Shore 4280856

Total award

1. Both parties attended the hearing on 11th February 2021. The tenant attended the hearing via teleconference from China.
2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

3. The tenancy started on 16th June 2019 and ended on 7th September 2020.
4. The tenants left for China in late 2019 and was unable to come back to New Zealand due to COVID-19. The tenants managed to find other subtenants.
5. The claims were essentially for what the subtenants have done but the tenants acknowledge that they would be liable due to the tenancy agreement never being changed into the subtenants’ names.
6. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
7. The tenants owe $208.57 in rent arrears and $22.61 in water rates arrears.
8. I order the amounts accordingly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

9. 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
10. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
11. The landlord provided photos taken of the premises as part of the inspection reports dated 15th June 2019, 7th September 2020 and 15th September 2020.
12. The cleaning left much to be desired and there were furniture left behind as rubbish.

13. I have seen the invoices provided by the landlord for the rubbish removal, cleaning and carpet cleaning.
14. I award $653.20 for cleaning, $203.00 for carpet cleaning and $450.00 for rubbish removal.
15. The light bulbs needed replacing as well. The landlord sought $171.21 to replace the light bulbs which included labour.
16. I do not allow labour costs for the light bulb replacement and only award $15.96 for the cost of the actual light bulbs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet, curtains, blinds blades and chain, ripped net curtains and stove top.

Insurance excess for the carpet

24. I find that there was some damage to the carpet. In addition to the carpet cleaning, the landlord claimed three insurance excesses for the carpet damaged in the lounge, bedroom and the hall.
25. I agree that the lounge carpet may need replacing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
26. I allow the insurance excess for the damage to the carpet in the lounge. However, I do not find that the other damages require the carpet to be replaced.
27. Therefore, I award one insurance excess only for the carpet in the lounge.Mouldy curtain
28. The landlord provided photo of a mouldy curtain.
29. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
30. I award $117.00 to replace the mouldy curtain.Blinds – blades and chain
31. The landlord provided photos of damages blinds. The blades and chain needed replacing.
32. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
33. I award $49.88 to replace the blades and chain.Net curtain
34. The landlord provided photos of a ripped net curtain.
35. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
36. I award $23.10 to replace the net curtains.Stove top
37. The landlord provided photos of a chipped stove top.
38. There is an invoice for $211.60 for filling a paint chip on enamel stove top. I find that the damage to the stove top is more than fair wear and tear but just barely.
39. The chip on the stove top is insignificant compared to the marks left on the oven due to fair wear and tear.
40. Therefore, I award $50.00 only for the stove top.

41. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations,and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.