The landlord, Why Worry Property, won $3900 to repair 16 damaged walls. File photo / 123RF
Dog urine and excrement stained the carpeting, 16 walls were defaced or damaged along with doors bearing up to 10 holes, and the hallway walls were sprayed with graffiti, all within a relatively short eight-month tenancy at a rental property in Roslyn.
The Tenancy Tribunal described damages to a Palmerston North property where tenants were ordered to pay $12,900 for intentionally wrecking and defacing the dwelling.
But landlord bosses said that was only the cost of repairs. No money was awarded for the pain, suffering and loss of rent the investor would be forced to endure on account of such extensive damage.
Tylah Larita Milina, Abdul Shamil Javet, Cyril-Lee Jacinda Milina and Ruhia Maria Milina were found responsible for damage to 24 Larsen Court in Roslyn.
The landlord, Why Worry Property, won $3900 to repair 16 walls, $2200 for rubbish removal, $1200 for cleaning costs, $1140 for patching, plastering and painting over 12 holes in the walls, and further amounts for fixing broken window latches, door handles, locks on sliding doors, smoke alarms, and lawn and garden work.
"The carpet and underlay in one bedroom had been extensively damaged with dog urine and excrement, as well as being damaged with burns and spray paint," the tribunal adjudicator said.
"In total, 16 walls had been defaced or damaged with either crayons or spray paint."
Other damages included 10 holes in doors, two internal bedroom doors damaged beyond repair, two door handles broken, locks on two sliding doors broken and requiring replacement, two window latches broken, 12 holes in internal walls needing patching, plastering and painting, and the hallway extensively graffitied with spray paint.
"The landlord supplied extensive and detailed photographic evidence of the damage caused and produced a pre-tenancy inspection report signed by the tenant confirming that the interior of the house had been freshly repainted and recarpeted," the ruling said.
Such extensive damage can only have been caused intentionally.
"The nature and extent of the damage rule out it having been fair wear-and-tear, especially where the tenancy was only for a period of some eight months. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is liable for the full amounts awarded and the amounts ordered are proved," the decision said.
Andrew King, President of NZ Property Investors' Federation, said the owners must have been distressed, especially since they had only just renovated the property before the tenants moved in.
"The good news is that the vast majority of tenants are not like these ones. However there is a proportion of society that live this way, and it demonstrates just how important it is to make sure you do not let these people into your property. This is even more important as new laws make it even harder to remove some poorly behaving tenants," King said.
The adjudicator did well explaining the decision and applying laws that limit tenants' liability for damage.
The owner was lucky that the tenants didn't turn up, remarked King, as the outcome would have been a lot different had they managed to successfully claim that the damage was accidental.
"This is because tenants are no longer responsible for damage that they or their guests cause accidentally or even carelessly to their rental property. Their liability is restricted to the landlord's insurance excess or four weeks rent - whichever is lower.
"If the landlord's insurance company declines the claim, then the landlord has to pay for anything above the excess or four weeks rent. Most insurance companies have a requirement for regular property inspections and may decline a claim if these weren't undertaken," King said.
This establishes a grey area, where tenants could potentially successfully claim that the damage was either careless or accidental and so have their liability reduced.
"The system is extremely complicated and subjective now, which is why the Federation's plan to fix the rental crisis calls for tenants to be responsible for the damage they cause, and allow landlords to take out insurance to cover their tenants actions, with the tenants paying for this insurance," King said.
This would be much more fair to rental property providers, and reduce their risk and costs while encouraging tenants to take better care of their rental homes.
It would also reduce the complexity of damage cases at the tenancy tribunal, reducing the number of cases needing to be heard and lowering the time it takes to hear and consider these types of cases, King said.
"While the award against the tenant was high, it only covered the actual cost of getting the property back into a condition that it could be relet to another tenant. There were no consequences for the tenant in leaving the property in such a state and there was no compensation to the owner for lost rent while the property was being repaired, the time and effort they would have had to put in getting it back to good order or the stress that all of this would have caused them.
"I think there should be consequences for tenants like this as there needs to be something to disincentivise tenants behaving in this way," he said.
The tribunal could have made an extra award that would have applied some consequences to the tenants' actions.
"Removing all the fire alarms in the property is an unlawful act and the tribunal could have awarded the landlord up to $4000. While adjudicators often make awards like these against landlords on tenants' behalf, there appears to be an unofficial rule that landlords have to actually apply for them in their application or they cannot be applied. This doesn't seem fair because it is difficult for rental providers to know all the complexities of the Residential Tenancies Act," protested King.
Peter Lewis, Federation Vice President and Northern Area Representative, said some landlords did not get the sums awarded by the tribunal. Not all tenants paid the amounts, he complained.
"An order is just that - simply a piece of paper. All it means is that the defendant cannot claim that they don't owe the debt. It is up to the landlord to chase that debt, and that can be a lengthy, tedious and in many cases fruitless exercise," Lewis said.
OPINION: You never know when bad luck might strike.