Tenancy

Who pays for pest control in a rental?

Whether the landlord or the tenant pays for pest control in aNew Zealand rental, what the Residential Tenancies Actrequires, and what decides borderline cases.

The short answer

In most cases the landlord pays. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, and pests entering through structural defects such as perished subfloor vents, unsealed penetrations or failed drainage is a maintenance matter. Tenants become responsible where the infestation results from how they are living in the property, for example food waste accumulation, or where they brought it in.

What the Act actually says

The relevant obligation sits in section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and to maintain them in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.

Tenants have a corresponding obligation under section 40 to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to notify the landlord of any damage or need for repair as soon as practicable. That notification duty matters more than most tenants realise, because a problem reported late is harder to attribute.

Neither section mentions pests specifically. The question is therefore always about causation: is the infestation the consequence of a repair issue, or of how the property is being occupied?

Where the line usually falls

Almost always the landlord: rodents entering through perished or missing subfloor vent mesh, gaps at service penetrations, a cracked gully trap or failed drainage, holes in cladding, an unclosed eave junction, or a subfloor that cannot be secured. Also an infestation demonstrably present at the start of the tenancy.

Usually the tenant: an infestation clearly resulting from food waste accumulation, rubbish not being removed, or hoarding. Fleas introduced by the tenant's own untreated animal. Bed bugs brought in with the tenant's furniture, though this is frequently disputed and hard to prove either way.

Genuinely arguable: a problem that appears mid-tenancy in a property with no obvious defect and no obvious housekeeping issue. This is where evidence decides it, and where most Tenancy Tribunal applications on this subject actually sit.

Healthy Homes and ceiling insulation

There is a connection people miss. The Healthy Homes Standards require ceiling and underfloor insulation to be in reasonable condition, and insulation that is damp, damaged or contaminated does not meet the standard.

Rodents living in ceiling insulation contaminate it with urine and droppings. That is a compliance issue independent of who caused the rodents, and it is the landlord's obligation to remedy. If you are a tenant with rodents in the ceiling, this is worth raising alongside the pest question rather than after it.

What actually resolves these disputes

Evidence, and specifically dated evidence describing cause rather than just describing the pest. A treatment record that says "treated for rodents" settles nothing. One that says "subfloor vent mesh perished on the north and east elevations, active runs through both openings, droppings consistent with ship rat throughout the subfloor" settles a great deal.

That is why we provide a written report describing what was found, where it was found and what caused it as standard on every rental job rather than on request. It costs us nothing extra and it is usually the thing the customer actually needed.

For tenants: report in writing, keep the record, and photograph what you can. For landlords and property managers: treat between tenancies, keep the dated record on file, and you will rarely have this argument at all.

Questions