Because she had won the case, the tribunal agreed to suppress the landlord’s name. It said the tenants had not shown sufficient grounds to suppress their names.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels that were provided for their benefit.
The landlord said that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. They had broken two windows and an electrical fixture.
She claimed it took three people, at least three 10-hour days work, at a total cost of $1800 to clean the property.
Inside the house there was mess everywhere, dishes to wash, walls to clean, and the stove, kitchen and toilet needed scrubbing, the landlord said. She did most of that work while two other people dealt with another big mess outside, filling up a skip bin and several trailer loads with abandoned rubbish and items, overgrown with weeds. Among the items were an old fridge a washing machine, and wooden items including broken windows, which were dangerous to remove and had to be replaced in the house.
Rocks, soil, and concrete had been dumped by the tenants on the roadside verge.
There were also things left by the tenants’ friend who had been staying in the back shed, and by some of their relatives who had stayed in a cabin in the front yard.
It cost the landlord about $400 for an electrician to fix a light switch that had been cut, extended and rerouted out to a lean-to area of the back shed. She was worried the modification had created a fire risk.
The tenants told the tribunal they had left the inside of the house reasonably clean but felt they should not clean the walls and ceilings due to the smoke damage from the fire. They had the impression the police and insurance company were yet to assess the fire damage so didn’t want to interfere with that process.
Ms Walker said they made five trips to the dump before moving out.
She said they left a pile of items in the lounge, including two tables, a bed, and some pots and pans, for the landlord’s son to take. However, they hadn’t arranged how he would dispose of anything he didn’t want.
The tenants said they had been let down by someone they had arranged to clear the outside of the property and disputed the amount of rubbish and time taken for the landlord’s team to do it.
They had ignored a message from the landlord about her dissatisfaction with the final inspection as they had left town and were more focused on starting new jobs and their new life.
Mr Campbell said the rubbish on the verge was from his work truck; he had dumped it there before taking his truck for a service and hadn’t got around to cleaning the mess up.
He questioned whether the work the electrician did was to remediate things in the back shed, or whether it was to fix something fire damaged in the main house, which they shouldn’t have to pay for. However, he also conceded he didn’t know what their friend had been up to in the shed.
Finding in the landlord’s favour, the tenancy tribunal accepted her evidence on most aspects of the claim. However, adjudicator C Price said there was insufficient photographic evidence to show the state of the inside of the house and due to the fire damage, the tenants would have been limited in how much they could clean.
