Lease court order the tenant to pay the owner $ 10K for property damage

Photo: RNZ / Kate Newton

He took four people to clean a rental property after the tenant left a “garbage mountain” and damages that included broken windows, graffiti and holes on the doors and walls.

Auckland owners say they spent $ 30,000 repairing the property after the tenant Kayla Bomford left.

While they have been able to claim some of that through insurance, they have gone to the Tenure Court for the rest.

Now, Bomford has been ordered to pay $ 10,356 to the owner, whose name is suppressed as a result of his victory in court.

At an audience that only attended the landlord, the court received photos of the garbage and the damage caused to the property.

The owner also provided invoices for two jump containers that were hired to remove the garbage that remained. One was so heavy that he incurred a penalty rate.

In the recently published decision, the judge of the court, Lily Ryken, said she accepted the evidence of the owner that the amount of garbage was significant.

“The court sees numerous compensation applications for garbage elimination,” he said.

“I consider that $ 2000 is a reasonable amount of compensation for the time and labor of the owner, given the amount of garbage that remains on the property.”

The claim of just over $ 3000 was awarded for compensation for the elimination of garbage, which included the cost of rental of the paper and garbage bags.

Broken windows, holes on the walls and graffiti

Ryken also accepted the evidence of the owner that Bomford had not returned the keys, and ordered the tenant to pay just over $ 985 for the lock and key replacement.

The owner said they spent around $ 30,000 to repair the damage caused by the tenant.

The owner insurer paid $ 23,233.45, leaving a deficit of $ 7255.05. The owner sought that amount, plus $ 1200 for excess insurance, from the tenant; A total of $ 8455.05.

At the audience, the owner gave evidence that the damage caused by the tenant included broken windows, holes on the walls and doors, graffiti on the walls of the house and the roof, and a frontal door lock.

Some photographs showed that internal doors had been removed, as well as broken blinds and stained carpet.

The house, which was understood as a construction of the 1960s, had been in good condition before the tenant moved, although there were no evidence of when he was last painted or replaced his carpets.

“The owner has completed a wide amount of repair work, including the repainting inside the house, recurring the roof, placing a new carpet and hanging new doors,” Ryken said.

“The value of the property has increased as a result. Therefore, I consider that there must be an adjustment to the total amount claimed by the owner for repairs.”

Ryken said that the owner should be returned to the position where they would have been if the tenant has not violated his obligations.

A $ 5000 adjustment was considered appropriate to reflect “improvement and depreciation.”

The claim of the owner of Compensation for Damage was granted for an adjusted amount of $ 3455. This included $ 1200 for excess insurance and $ 2255.05, for the deficit for repairs (less adjustment for improvements and depreciation).

The owner also looked for 24 weeks of lost rent calculated at a rate of $ 700 per week, since the compensation for the time that the house could not be rented while significant repair works were carried out.

The owner said that there had been delays due to the process with the insurer, and asked to be reimbursed at $ 700 per week, because that was the rent of the market at that time.

However, Ryken said the lease had been $ 640 per week, not $ 700, and there were no evidence to support the rental of the $ 700 market.

Ryken also pointed out that the tenant could not be responsible for delays with the insurer.

“In this case, I am satisfied that a reasonable person would anticipate that the premises could not change again immediately given the scope of the damage suffered,” he said.

“In addition, an owner cannot expect the facilities to change immediately after the end of a possession.”

Ryken said that given the circumstances of this case, he was satisfied that the compensation of six weeks of rent at $ 640 per week, which was the rate applied during the lease, was justified.

“Therefore, I grant $ 3840 in the lost rent.”

The owner also received $ 200 to cover the cost of an eviction order from the Ministry of Justice, which required the tenant to force the tenant at the end of the lease.

The claims of the owner for a stolen carpet roll, supposedly taken from the garage, and the reimbursement of his property administration company that filed a court claim, denied due to insufficient evidence.

The owner was granted an order of non -publication, since they had been “substantially successful” in his claim.

* This story originally appeared in the Neozenda Herald.