A tenant said her Kelston rental was in a "rough area" when asked to explain a rubbish fire that damaged the house.
A tenant said her Kelston rental was in a "rough area" when asked to explain a rubbish fire that damaged the house.
A tenant had no explanation for a rubbish fire at the West Auckland house she rented, which caused damage to windows and weatherboards, other than to suggest it was a “rough area” with “gang members” living nearby.
However, the landlords suggested there was an obvious explanation for the fire atthe Kelston house, as it happened hours after they’d emailed asking for a pile of rubbish to be removed.
After the fire, Karlee Eileen Naomi Thompson and Sarge Rolly Te Tonga were taken to the Tenancy Tribunal by their landlords, who were granted name suppression, over damage caused at the rental property.
In the recently released findings, the landlords made claims for rubbish removal and cleaning costs, and for damage caused by the rubbish fire.
Two windows needed replacing, as well as weatherboards.
The fire happened about 4pm. Contractors working nearby saw the fire and a person, known to live at the property, when it was ablaze.
The specific address of the Kelston property is suppressed. The tenant claimed there were "gang members" living nearby, in explanation for a rubbish fire that damaged the house.
The tribunal adjudicator noted that arson was a serious crime that typically resulted in imprisonment in the event of conviction.
“It is improbable that an unknown person without any motive would set fire to the rubbish pile,” the adjudicator found.
“It is more likely that one of the tenants or another occupier lit the fire in response to the landlords’ request to get rid of the rubbish.”
Thompson denied responsibility for the fire but could not offer a plausible alternative explanation for what may have caused it, the decision said.
She said that it was a “rough area” with “gang members living in the community”.
The adjudicator was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that “one of the tenants and/or one or more of their guests” lit the pile of rubbish next to the house.
“In lighting the fire, that person knew that the house would inevitably be damaged,” the adjudicator said.
“I find on the balance of probabilities that the lighter of the fire caused the damage intentionally. Because the fire lighter was a tenant or an authorised guest, the tenants are liable for the cost of repair.”
One of the landlords had asked her insurer if it would cover the cost of the fire damage.
However, after she told the insurer that one of the tenants lit the fire, the insurer advised it would not cover the event because it had been deliberate.
The landlord’s contractor charged $6037 to repair the damage.
The adjudicator said the tribunal should return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.
The original windows were only four or five years old; the weatherboards were in good condition before the fire, but had not been painted for an indefinite number of years.
“I consider I should apply depreciation at the rate of 10%, having regard to the age and condition of the windows and weatherboards at the start of the tenancy,” the adjudicator said.
The tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $5433.30 for the cost of repairing the damage.
They also had to pay $460 for rubbish removal.
Part of this was covered by the bond already lodged, which was $2800.
The total amount left for the tenants to pay was $3120.30.
HannahBartlettis a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.
