Landlords clamping down on damage

"Even families with young children, they're great tenants, but they do cause damage and if they're not very responsible for it anymore." Andrew King, NZ Property Investors' Federation

Property investors have applauded a court ruling that sided with a Manawatu landlord over tenant damage to his property.

Foxton landlord David Russ successfully appealed to the Palmerston North District Court after a Tenancy Tribunal ruling found his tenant was not liable for dogs ruining the carpets in his rental property.

Since last year, the tribunal has been grappling with interpreting a landmark Court of Appeal case that found two tenants were not liable to repay their landlord’s insurer for an accidental house fire. Determining factors are whether the landlord has insurance and whether the tenant can prove the damage is unintentional, even if it involved negligence.

Andrew King of the New Zealand Property Investors’ Federation said it was an unjust situation that had got under the skin of many landlords. ‘‘I’ve never had as many calls and emails from investors over any other issue.

‘‘It’s not good for the tenants, either. We are getting landlords who are just saying, ‘oh, I used to allow dogs, but not any more’... and it’s hard enough as it is for people with pets.

‘‘Even families with young children, they’re great tenants, but they do cause damage and if they’re not very responsible for it anymore, I think a lot of people are saying, ‘I’m looking twice now at families’.’’

The odd investor had told King they were so nervous about damage, they were not thinking of letting their property at all. It leads to some very perverse situations.’’

Building and construction minister Nick Smith has proposed to change the current law so a tenant would be liable for damage of up to four weeks’ rent or, if it was more, the landlord’s insurance excess.

King said that was good news, but it raised other issues, such as whether it would raise insurance premiums for contents cover. He also suggested that the tribunal take the view that if a tenant did not show up to prove the damage wasn’t intentional, the landlord should win by default.

Di Harwood, manager of the Tenants Protection Association in Christchurch, said she agreed with the landlord in this case that common sense had prevailed.

The tenant had breached her no-pets tenancy agreement. ‘‘Ultimately, the tenants have a responsibility to look under the Residential Tenancies Act to look after the property that they are renting and that shows in this.’’

However, it was unclear whether Smith’s proposal would mean tenants making initial reparation could still be chased by landlords’ insurance companies.