A landlord has sold a rental property "as is" at a reduced price after damage caused by the tenant. Photo / 123RF
A landlord has sold a rental property "as is" at a reduced price after damage caused by the tenant. Photo / 123RF
The owners of a Whangārei rental have quit the property, selling it “as is” after the tenant left owing almost $18,000 in damages, rent, and water rates.
The Tenancy Tribunal described extensive damage to the home as “remarkable”, given it was brand new when the tenant moved in.
A video of the damage showed stains on the carpet throughout the house, children’s writing on the walls, holes in walls throughout the house, missing or damaged door handles, damaged hinges on kitchen cabinetry, damaged and stained curtains, a heavily scratched and damaged stovetop, damage to the edge of the kitchen bench and damage to the edge of the bathtub.
The tribunal, which has not suppressed names or details of either party, has ordered Robyn Nikita Blanc to pay property management firm Longterm Limited $15,454 of the total $17,814 award.
The total excluded the $2360 bond to be paid to the landlord.
Blanc was the new home’s first tenant, having moved in during February 2020.
The tenancy ended in September 2022, with the owners heading to the tribunal seeking $1543 in unpaid rent, water rates of $906, and compensation for damage.
It included more than $6000 to cover the cost of replacing the carpet, $5175 for damage to the bath, $2500 compensation for damage to walls, curtains, stovetop, and doors, plus $1500 for exemplary damage described as “interference with the means of escape from fire”.
A landlord has sold a rental "as is", after the tenant left owing thousands in damage and unpaid bills. Photo / 123rf
Evidence provided to the tribunal showed that the smoke alarms in the house were in working order at the beginning of the tenancy but, by the end of it, all the batteries had been removed from the alarms.
It’s against the law for a tenant to interfere or render inoperative “any means of escape from fire”, which included smoke alarms.
Breaches of this law could attract exemplary damages of up to $4000, the tribunal noted.
Because Blanc did not attend the hearing, the tribunal did not know why the batteries were removed.
There was no evidence of smoking inside the house and Blanc had not raised any complaints about the alarms going off or being faulty.
In the absence of any other information, the tribunal concluded that Blanc intentionally removed the batteries from all of the alarms, which effectively put her life and the landlord’s property at risk.
Tribunal adjudicator Nicholas Blake said in his decision last month there was a strong public interest in ensuring landlords fitted compliant and working smoke alarms in residential properties and that tenants did not interfere with them.
“It is well recognised that smoke alarms are a simple, inexpensive and very effective means of reducing the risk of loss of life and the extent of damage to property in the event of a fire.”
Having regard to these factors he awarded exemplary damages of $1500.
The tribunal said the landlord’s rent record established rent arrears of $1543 and water rates owed for the full period of the tenancy.
The landlord replaced the carpet and the bathtub, then sold the house with the remaining damage on an “as is” basis, having lowered the sale price.
A representative for Longterm at the hearing Joseph Pyle, who is also listed as one of the previous owners of the property, declined to comment when approached by NZME.
Attempts were also been made to reach Blanc.
The tribunal said on the evidence provided it was satisfied the carpet was badly stained in most parts of the house and had to be replaced because the stains could not be removed by cleaning.
Damage to the side of the enamel bath could not be repaired.
The landlord submitted that Blanc tried to explain the damage by saying the glass shower door had fallen loose and hit the bath, but the tribunal agreed this explanation was not credible.
The video showed the door intact and “strongly attached” to the shower. The landlord had not had any work done on the door and it was unlikely Blanc would have had the door re-attached at her cost if it had “fallen” in the manner she alleged, the tribunal noted.
“The nature of the damage is such that it can be reasonably inferred [in the absence of any other information] that it was intentionally caused.”
The tribunal said the landlord’s $2500 claim for compensation was “fair and reasonable”, given the cost to repair the extensive damage to the home would have exceeded this amount.
Remedying it would have required repairing [where necessary] and re-painting almost every wall in the house, replacing damaged and stained curtains, repairing or replacing the stovetop, and replacing door handles.
“As noted, the landlord did not carry out this work but sold the property at a reduced rate.
“The purchaser would certainly have factored the cost of repairs into the price that he or she was willing to pay for the house.”
