Now, Bomford has been ordered to pay $10,356 to the landlord, whose name is suppressed as a result of their win in the tribunal.
In a hearing only the landlord attended the tribunal was provided with photos of the rubbish and damage caused to the property.
The landlord also provided invoices for two skip bins that were hired to remove the rubbish left behind. One was so heavy it incurred a penalty fee.
In the recently published decision, tribunal adjudicator Lily Ryken said she accepted the landlord’s evidence that the amount of rubbish was significant.
“The tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for rubbish removal,” she said.
“I consider $2000 to be a reasonable amount of compensation for the landlord’s time and labour, given the amount of rubbish left at the property.”
The just over $3000 claim for compensation for rubbish removal was granted, which included the cost of the skip bin hire and rubbish bags.
Broken windows, holes in walls, and graffiti
Ryken also accepted the landlord’s evidence that Bomford had not returned the keys, and ordered the tenant to pay just over $985 for lock and key replacement.
The landlord claimed they spent about $30,000 to repair the damage caused by the tenant.
The landlord’s insurer paid $23,233.45, leaving a shortfall of $7255.05. The landlord sought that amount, plus $1200 for their insurance excess, from the tenant; a total of $8455.05.
At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that the damage caused by the tenant included broken windows, holes in the walls and doors, graffiti on the walls of the house and the deck, and a broken front door lock.
Some photographs showed internal doors had been removed, as well as broken blinds and stained carpet.
The house, which was understood to be a 1960s build, had been in good condition before the tenant moved in, although no evidence was given as to when it was last painted or had its carpets replaced.
“The landlord has had an extensive amount of repair work completed, including repainting the inside of the house, repainting the deck, laying new carpet, and hanging new doors,” Ryken said.
“The value of the property has increased as a result. Therefore, I consider there needs to be an adjustment to the total amount claimed by the landlord for repairs.”
Ryken said the landlord needed to be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.
An adjustment of $5000 was deemed appropriate to reflect “betterment and depreciation”.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage was granted for an adjusted amount of $3455. This included $1200 for insurance excess, and $2255.05, for the shortfall for repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation).
The landlord also sought 24 weeks' lost rent calculated at a rate of $700 a week, as compensation for the time the house could not be rented out while significant repair work was carried out.
The landlord said there had been delays due to the process with the insurer, and asked to be reimbursed at $700 a week, because that was market rent at the time.
However, Ryken noted the tenancy had been for $640 a week, not $700, and no evidence was given to support market rent being $700.
Ryken also noted the tenant could not be held responsible for delays with the insurer.
“In this case, I am satisfied that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises might not be able to be re-tenanted immediately given the extent of the damage sustained,” she said.
“Further, a landlord cannot expect that premises will be immediately re-tenanted after the end of a tenancy.”
Ryken said that given the circumstances of this case, she was satisfied that compensation of six weeks’ rent at $640 per week, which is the rate applied during the tenancy, was justified.
“Therefore, I award $3840 in lost rent.”
The landlord was also awarded $200 to cover the cost of a Ministry of Justice eviction warrant, which was required to forcibly remove the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for a stolen roll of carpet, allegedly taken from the garage, and reimbursement for their property management company filing a tribunal claim, were declined due to insufficient evidence.
The landlord was granted a non-publication order, given they had been “substantially successful” in their claim.
Hannah Bartlett is 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.
