Tenant Damage Case: Tribunal Awards $2,412 for Cleaning and Repairs
Damage at the end of a tenancy is not always as clear-cut as it appears. Landlords need to distinguish between fair wear and tear from everyday living and damage that a tenant may be responsible for, particularly in a busy household where greater wear can reasonably be expected.
This case study looks at a Tenancy Tribunal decision involving seven authorised occupants, multiple cleaning and repair issues, and a landlord seeking compensation after the tenancy ended. We look at what was found at the property, why the Tribunal considered some of the damage to be more than fair wear and tear, and what landlords can learn from the outcome.
Key Takeaways
The Tribunal found several areas of damage went beyond fair wear and tear.
The property had seven authorised occupants, which the Tribunal recognised would result in some additional wear and tear.
Proven costs included carpet and oven cleaning, lock replacement, door and garage repairs, and other household damage.
The landlord provided invoices for the repair work, which the Tribunal considered reasonable.
The total award was $2,412.34, leaving $1,212.34 payable after the $1,200 bond was applied.
How the damage dispute started
The case involved a fixed-term Waikato tenancy with seven authorised occupants. When the tenancy ended, the landlord applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for compensation for costs incurred and the release of the $1,200 bond.
The size of the household was relevant. The Tribunal noted that it was a busy family home, probably including children or young people, so some additional wear and tear was to be expected.
What followed was a closer look at which issues were part of everyday living and which crossed the line.
What damage was found after the tenancy ended?
There was no single major incident. Instead, the claim covered cleaning and repairs in several areas of the property.
Three carpet stains were found: one in the lounge, one in a bedroom, and a smaller stain inside a wardrobe. The landlord also reported a dog-related smell that needed removing. The bottom of the oven and the rangehood filters required extra cleaning.
Other issues included:
A broken and removed front door lock mechanism.
A slightly split front door jamb.
Writing inside a cupboard that needed painting over.
A dent in the panelled garage door.
Holes and paint damage in different areas of the property.
A disposed LED light strip.
A cracked and dented letterbox.
Around four holes in the lawn, probably dug by the dog.
When is damage more than fair wear and tear?
Fair wear and tear is the gradual deterioration that comes from normal use of a rental property. Tenants are not responsible for this everyday deterioration, but they may be responsible when damage is careless or intentional.
That was the key distinction in this case. Although the Tribunal allowed for greater wear because of the size of the household, it found the proven damage went beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant did not attend the hearing, so there was no explanation before the Tribunal to show that the damage was not careless or intentional.
Tenancy Services has more information on damage, repairs and fair wear and tear.
Why the full cost was recoverable
Tenant liability for careless damage is capped under section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act. Where the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. Where it is not covered, liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Those limits do not apply to intentional damage.
Cleaning costs sit outside those provisions. Leaving a property reasonably clean and tidy is a separate obligation under section 40, so a landlord claiming cleaning costs is claiming compensation for breach of that obligation rather than for damage. That is why cleaning and repair claims are assessed differently even when they appear on the same application.
How the landlord took the claim to the tribunal
Representatives for the landlord attended the hearing, while the tenant did not. The adjudicator proceeded after noting that notice of the hearing had been emailed to the tenant's address for service.
For the costs being claimed, the landlord supplied invoices for all repair work. The Tribunal considered the invoices reasonable and awarded the costs, along with reimbursement of the $28 filing fee.
This is where having a clear paper trail matters. Staircase's fridge damage and bond dispute case study looks at another Tribunal decision where the evidence available affected which claims succeeded.
What did the Tenancy Tribunal decide?
The Tribunal awarded the landlord $2,412.34 for the proven cleaning and repair costs, including reimbursement of the $28 filing fee.
The $1,200 bond did not limit the amount the landlord could be awarded. It was applied towards the total $2,412.34 award. Because the proven cleaning and repair costs were higher than the bond, the Bond Centre was ordered to pay the full $1,200 bond to the landlord, while the tenant was ordered to pay the remaining $1,212.34 directly.
In other words, the bond covered only part of the amount awarded. The remaining costs did not disappear simply because they exceeded the bond held for the tenancy.
Tenancy Services explains how landlords and tenants can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal when a dispute cannot be resolved directly.
What can landlords take from this case?
The big takeaway is not that every mark or repair at the end of a tenancy can be charged to the tenant. This decision shows the opposite: reasonable wear still has to be allowed for.
Where the case becomes useful for landlords is in the detail. The individual problems were identified, the repair costs were backed by invoices, and the Tribunal could assess those costs against what it considered normal use of the property.
For landlords, that means good records can make a real difference. Regular inspections, photos, clear communication and invoices can provide a much clearer picture if an end-of-tenancy disagreement ever needs to be resolved.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or tenancy advice. Tenancy circumstances and Tribunal decisions vary. Consider seeking professional advice about your particular situation.
Comments