What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4420180?

The tribunal order states: Marnitz Moolman and Jade Moolman must pay Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth

How much money was awarded in case 4420180?

Cleaning: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,991.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to supply work…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity during…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Landlords Time Addressing Breaches: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Drapes: $217.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $478.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $107.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4420180?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4420180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10299322-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4420180?

The tribunal order states: Marnitz Moolman and Jade Moolman must pay Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth

How much money was awarded in case 4420180?

Cleaning: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,991.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to supply work…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity during…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Landlords Time Addressing Breaches: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Drapes: $217.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $478.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $107.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4420180?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4420180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10299322-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6B Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4420180 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

6B Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4420180 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4420180 — net $2,608.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$713.00		Carpet Cleaning
Remote and key replacement	$478.48		Remote and key replacement
Rubbish removal	$107.93		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$50.00		Cleaning
Missing drapes	$217.78		Missing drapes
Wall repairs	$750.00		Wall repairs
Carpet compensation	$2,991.00		Carpet compensation
Landlords time addressing breaches	$400.00		Landlords time addressing breaches
Compensation: Failure to supply working heat pump		$300.00	Failure to supply working heat pump
Compensation: Loss of amenity during building works		$250.00	Loss of amenity during building works
Total award	$6,558.19	$550.00
Net award	$2,608.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,608.19

Claims and awards for application 4420180 — net $2,608.19 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $850.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $713.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Remote and key replacement

Amount: $478.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote and key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $107.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Missing drapes

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Marnitz Moolman and Jade Moolman must pay Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth Royal $2,608.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6399568-007) to Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth Royal immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended. All parties appeared at the hearing today at the North Shore District Courthouse.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlords as Elizabeth Royal and Ash Arrowsmith, and the two tenants as Jade and Marnitz Moolman.
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2021, and was initially a fixed term tenancy until 14 August 2021. After that time the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. Also during the course of the tenancy, Mr Moolman moved out, with Mrs Moolman continuing as the sole tenant. Ultimately the tenancy ended following notice from the tenant, the final date of the tenancy being 6 October 2022. The weekly rental was $850.00.
As will be set out below, various disputes occurred during the tenancy, and I will set out the relevant background for those disputes below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant states that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards regulations (HHS) because the heat pump was broken for several months. The tenant says that she needed to purchase her own heaters to keep the premises warm, and the premises became mouldy over this time also.
In response, the landlord states that the issue with the heat pump started in February when the months were warmer, therefore it was no so important to have a working heat pump available. The landlord states that a contractor was arranged, and reference was made to the contractor’s report which set out the history of the repair, which included a range of difficulties and multiple failures when the circuit board was replaced. The landlord states that they did observe the tenants using a smaller heater. The landlord states that this problem occurred during a time when there were COVID restrictions. The landlord considers that they attended to the problem promptly when this issue was raised. The landlord states that the tenant only complained at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that this was only raised at the end of the tenancy, referring to communications on file where the tenant had raised ongoing concerns about delays in getting the heat pump repaired. The tenant says it was cold over that time. Further the tenant states that they were required to communicate with the contractors. The tenants say the heat pump was repaired on 11 June 2024 Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards, because during the tenancy the heat pump failed, and it was some months until it was repaired.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. A portable electric heater would be unacceptable. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity.
In this case the tenants do not dispute that the heat pump the landlord provided would not meet the HHS requirement, but their position is that over the 17 odd weeks, the heat pump was not working, that became a breach of the HHS.
In my view the landlords have likely complied with the HHS because a heat pump was installed at the start of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the heat pump failed, but that is not a breach of the HHS per se, but would be a maintenance issue for the landlord. When I consider the communications and evidence available, I accept that landlord did efficiently arrange for a contractor to attend and fix the heat pump. However it appears that despite reasonable efforts the contractor was not able to get the heat pump working, and several visits and attempts were required to get the unit operational again.
While I do not consider there has been an HHS breach from a strict perspective, it is the case that the landlord needed to provide a working heat pump, that is something the tenants were paying rent for, and they were entitled to receive a working heat pump. I accept that the tenants supplied alternate heaters that they needed to use. The tenant says that they needed to use more power for those heaters, but that has not been established in the evidence before me.
I consider that it would be reasonable for the tenants to receive some level of compensation to take account of a working heat pump not being provided, despite the fact the tenants were paying rent for that feature of the dwelling, and also needing to provide an alternate heating source.
Taking into account the period of time the tenants were without a working heat pump, and that the tenants needed to supply alternate heating, I conclude that a fair level of compensation for being without the heat pump (the tenants were paying rent to receive) would be $300.00, and that is ordered. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants says that in the last 8 odd weeks of the tenancy, there were multiple leaks in the dwelling which required a number of inspections on the part of the landlord and contractors. This included a leak to the French doors, and the landlord undertook a temporary repair. However the leak worsened, and therefore a builder undertook a further assessment, and explained that there would need to be the door removed. The tenant says that the work was then undertaken in the last week of the tenancy and that it affected her child, given the noise, dust and debris. The tenant says that she could not stay in the premises and needed to stay with a family member. The tenant said there was widespread debris in the house and garden.
The landlord referred to a letter from the builder which confirmed that the work was needed to be completed urgently, and the builders worked between 9 and 6 pm, and over three days. The French doors were removed for 4 hours but then replaced. The builder stated that the work was undertaken with the tenant present. Once watertight the work ceased, and the builder returned after the tenancy ended to finish the inside work.
Following discussion the landlord offered $121.00 (one day’s rent), but the tenant declined this offer.
The tenants considered that the landlord had underestimated the inconvenience, such as needing to look after the dog, and the mess left afterward. Analysis
As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, I consider that compensation should be provided to the tenants. The tenants have experienced an inconvenience in relation to the building work required, and to that extent, the tenants were not getting the quiet enjoyment from the tenancy they were statutorily required to receive.
That inconvenience includes (but is not limited to): a. Having builders on site for 3 days. b. Noise. c. Dust and other construction detritus. d. Decreased amenity given the plywood patch to the inside wall and floor of the house.
Some of those effects would have been present until the end of the tenancy.
The challenge with these sorts of claims is working out what a fair level of compensation would be in the circumstances. When I step back and consider matters in the round, I consider that it would be fair for the landlord to pay the tenants $250.00 compensation, just over 2 days of rent payments for the premises, and that is ordered.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord has claimed the last week of rent being $850.00. The tenant agrees this rent was not paid. While the tenant considers there were reasons for not paying the rent, ultimately the tenants agree it was not paid, so the claimed amount is ordered in full. Water rates
The landlord claims that the tenants owe $173.00 in water rates.
At the hearing, I asked the landlord how the water charges were calculated. The landlord advised that the full water rates invoice is split between the tenancy and another dwelling on site.
The tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi- detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA that relates to decision-making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
That means the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach that deals with the water charges on a fair basis, and splitting the accounts between dwellings would be fair in the absence of separate water meters.
However the real problem for the landlord is that the tenants have been charged the full amount of the water invoice. The tenants are not liable for the supply charges, only the consumption charges. Because the landlord has split the full water bill, that means the tenants will have been charged for water charges they are not liable to pay.
I will not express any further view on the liability of the tenant for water charges. What the landlord will now need to do, is to re-calculate the water charges over the duration of the tenancy, and that may result in an over or underpayment once that exercise has been completed. But the landlord should communicate the outcome with the tenants. I am sure the parties will be able to resolve this matter between them, but if they cannot, then either party can obtain further orders from the Tribunal around liability for water. Carpet Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $713.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord refers to the account from the carpet cleaner which confirmed that the carpets were cleaned prior to this tenancy, and at the end of this tenancy, the carpet was heavily stained from dog urine. The carpet cleaner considered that the carpets could not be further remediated.
The tenants do not dispute this claim, and agree they are liable for the carpet cleaning cost of $713.00. That claim is accordingly ordered by consent. Remote control and lock replacement
The landlord states that the tenants were provided with remote controls at the start of the tenancy, and the gate and garage remotes (two different remotes), and the house keys were not returned.
The landlord claims $230.00 for reprogramming the replacement remotes, and $170.00 for the garage remotes, and $78.48 for standard key replacement.
In response, the tenant says that some keys and remotes were returned. The tenant states that one garage remote and one gate remote was left on the premises but accepts some keys and remotes were not returned.
The landlord states that they needed to replace two remotes for the garage door and gate, because they could not replace only one for programming reasons. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
In this case that landlord has claimed for replacement remote controls for the garage and gate, and keys. The tenant accepted that not all keys and remotes were returned, but advised that one of each remote was given back to the landlord. In response the landlord advised that it was not possible to replace only one remote control, and that the minimum that could be recorded was two devices, I have no reason not to accept that.
I accept that the tenants have failed to comply with their obligation to return the remotes and keys, the landlord’s claim is reasonable and is ordered in full, that is $230.00 for reprogramming the remotes, and $170.00 for the supply of the garage remotes, and $78.48 for standard key replacement. The total amount ordered is $478.48 Rubbish removal and dump fees
The landlord seeks costs for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers photographs left by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $107.93 from Envirowaste, being two trailers of rubbish.
The tenant states that they had left a TV unit and BBQ on the premises, and some other items of rubbish. Analysis
The RTA requires that the tenants remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have not complied with that requirement. The landlord has claimed for the cost of dumping this rubbish. Given the volume of tenant rubbish, the cost seems entirely reasonable and is ordered in full. Cleaning costs
The landlord stated that she needed to take time off in order to clean the premises. The landlord states that the stone tiles at the bottom of the shower were very unclean, and the glass screen in the bathroom needed extensive cleaning. Further, the cabinetry, kitchen, oven and blinds needed cleaning. The landlord states it took some two days to clean the premises.
The landlord claims $480.00 for her time cleaning the premises and $80.00 for cleaning materials.
In response the tenant states that they submit photographs at the end of the tenancy, and they dispute that the premises were unclean. The tenant disputes that cleaning needed was at the extent the landlord claims was required. The tenants also say that there were contractors in the house after they left, that would have needed to have had cleaning at that time. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by both parties, alongside the description both parties have of the premises. In my assessment, other than the oven and shower glass, I am satisfied that the tenant has returned the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The premises were not immaculate, but that is not the standard needed. It is not uncommon for a landlord and tenant to disagree on what would be ‘reasonably’ clean, but ultimately it is the landlord who must prove the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and the adjudicator who must ultimately decide if the premises were reasonably clean.
I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show the oven and shower glass was not reasonably clean, and order that the tenant pay $50.00 for the landlord’s time and effort in cleaning those two areas. Missing drapes
The landlord states that drapes were missing from one bedroom, so they needed to find replacement drapes. The landlord claims $219.78, advising that they were brand-new at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that they were mouldy curtains that they washed, and then were damaged in the washing machine, so they were thrown out. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels, in particular drapes. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
The tenant has not disputed that the drapes were not returned. The fact that the curtains were damaged in the wash is not relevant for considering liability under this claim. The drapes were not returned, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full to the sum of $219.78. Dog door
The landlord states that there was a dog door, and during the tenancy, the glass around the dog door became cracked.
The tenants dispute that their dog broke the dog door because it was a small dog. The tenant says it was damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord disputes that the door was damaged before the tenancy started, referring to the pre-tenancy inspections.
The landlord has not had the glass replaced at this time. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
In this case I accept that the glass at the bottom of the pet door was cracked, and I accept this probably occurred during the tenancy. But the problem for the landlord, is that the landlord has not proven that this damage would be beyond fair wear and tear.
However, even if I were wrong in that assessment, in order to succeed with this claim, I would need to be satisfied that the damage was careless or intentional damage, and I don’t believe the evidence supports either situation. It is not clear what caused the crack in the glass, but I do not consider it has been proven to the balance of probabilities that it would have arisen from carelessness or an intentional act on the part of the tenants. This claim is accordingly dismissed. Wall repairs
The landlord states that the tenants applied stick on mirror tiles onto the lounge wall. They were not removed at the end of the tenancy, but when they were removed by the landlord, it has pulled off the face of the plaster board which required plastering and repainting. The landlord states that there was damage to walls in two other rooms from affixing other things to walls.
The tenants agree that they did put these items on the walls, and that what it was stated in relation to those it items is that they could be put on the walls. The tenants consider there must have been something wrong with the paint, stating there was mould under the paint.
The landlord disputes there was anything wrong with the paint. Analysis
I accept that at the end of the tenancy, there were issues with damage to the walls, arising from the removal of mirrored tiles and other items stuck on the walls.
The tenants do not dispute sticking items on the walls, but they consider there was some defect with the paint, but they have provided no evidence to prove this. I accept the walls were damaged during the tenancy, and this damage was beyond fair wear and tear. Overall the tenant has not proven that the damage to the walls was not careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has claimed $750.00 to plaster and repaint those walls. Given there are three walls that have been damaged, I consider this claim to be reasonable, and it is ordered in full. Carpet replacement
The landlord seeks costs for carpet replacement, from dog urine staining and odours. The landlord states that the current tenants have complained about the smell of the carpet, and that they have imported a product from overseas to try to address it. The landlord says that the front lounge carpet was particularly bad,
The landlord says that the staining was in three areas, that was the Front lounge, dining room and (other) lounge.
The landlord says the carpet was new in the front lounge (supported by an invoice from 2020), with the remainder of the carpet being about three years old at the start of this tenancy.
The landlord states that the current tenants have pets but they have undertaken that once they could afford to replace the carpet they would get on and get it replaced. The landlord’s claim is based on an estimate of what it would cost to replace the carpet.
In response the tenants say that the carpet throughout the house was not in good condition (other than the lounge with new carpet). The tenants accept that their pet left some stains, but not the staining to the extent the landlords say. The tenants say that the amounts the landlord has claimed for the carpets have varied over the course of the claims.
The tenants consider that the photographs of the front lounge carpet (the new carpet) is staining from their pet, but they consider that they the staining would have been contributed to by the cleaning.
The landlord concludes by referring to the statement from the carpet cleaner confirming that the carpets were very clean at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The evidence is that the tenants dog has urinated on the carpet, causing a strong odour to continue despite commercial cleaning, and staining the carpets.
Based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that this damage occurred during this tenancy. Carpet in one of the rooms was new at the start of this tenancy, so the staining, which is extensive, must have been caused during this tenancy. I have no reason to consider that the staining shown in the other two rooms was not equally the result of dog urine from these tenants.
The damage to the carpets is well beyond fair wear and tear. The question then becomes whether it was careless or intentional damage, and I find the damage would fall into the category of intentional damage.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. That was also a case relating to dogs (two toy poodles) that would urinate inside the dwelling, damaging the carpets. The High Court concluded in that case: [41] Mr Guo accepts that one or even two stains on the carpet caused by the dogs could be accidental rather than intentional. He also accepts that the Korcks did not set out to damage the carpet. He relies on the extent of the damage, both in terms of how many rooms were affected and the number and size of the stains, to infer that the dogs urinated in the house on multiple occasions over a long period. This is a reasonable conclusion. It is also reasonable to conclude that the Korcks knew, after a few episodes of the dogs urinating inside, that further damage was certain if the dogs remained inside. The damage could have been mitigated; it was not. This, he says, determines whether the resulting damage is intentionally caused, rather than relying on any breach of the tenancy agreement. [42] I agree. I accept Mr Guo’s submission that this conclusion does not depend on a breach of the tenancy agreement. If it did, however, then the Korcks had an obligation to notify Mr Guo as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, and did not do so.17 [43] I also accept Mr Guo’s submission that permitting the dogs on the premises under the terms of the tenancy agreement did not mean that he assumed all risk of damage. He was entitled to rely on the Korcks’ assurances that the dogs were house-trained. What Mr Guo did accept was only that there would be greater wear and tear on the property because of the dogs. To that extent only, his permission for the dogs informed the tenant’s obligations. It did not mean that all damage, whatever the extent, caused by the dogs urinating on the carpet is fair wear and tear or unintentional. I record for the sake of completeness the Tribunal’s finding that the carpet had been damaged beyond fair wear and tear, requiring replacement. The Korcks do acknowledge there was some damage to the carpet. The Tribunal found that the evidence of extensive damage was compelling. There is no evidence contradicting that, even if I was permitted to re-examine the factual findings.
Following that same approach, I find that given the extensive staining, the damage falls into the intentional damage category, meaning the tenants are liable for the damage unconstrained by the insurance excess.
The question then, is what the tenant’s liability would be?
There are two broad areas of carpet damage, that is the carpet that was new at the start of the tenancy (front lounge), and the other areas which was about three years old at the start of the tenancy. The age of the carpet is relevant, because I must apply depreciation.
In relation to depreciation, I note the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR265) which records that the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years.
In relation to the carpet in the front lounge, it is reasonable to apply the cost of the carpet when it was purchased on 10 November 2020 (I do not have any better evidence of cost), which was a cost of $3,990.00. Given the estimated useful life determined by Inland Revenue (that I will apply), that means that the carpet is some 3.5 years old at this time, meaning it had 4.5 years remaining at $498 per year, being a value of $2,241.00. That amount is ordered to be paid by the tenants to the landlord.
However, in relation to the carpet in the other two areas, that is more problematic for two particular reasons. a. The landlord was not able to confirm with any precision how old that carpet actually is. b. I have not received any evidence from a carpet supplier setting out what the cost for replacing that carpet would be.
I do however accept that based on the report from the carpet cleaner, that the carpet was in reasonable condition, there is no evidence to the contrary. To that extent, I consider it likely the landlord could have expected further life in that carpet in reality, but what that would be I cannot be sure. I have determined that it is fair to order a nominal amount for carpet replacement in the other two rooms, which I set at $750.00. Labour and time
The landlord seeks $400.00 for the landlord’s time with rubbish removal, sourcing keys and remotes, and sourcing and hanging curtains. Analysis
For the reasons set out above, I find the tenants have breached their obligations to the landlord around the rubbish left on the premises, returning keys and remotes, and the curtains. It is reasonable for the landlord to be reimbursed for their time in addressing those breaches. The amount claimed for the landlord’s time seems reasonable and is ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression. However neither party has been wholly successful, and I am not persuaded that either party has been substantially successful. Therefore name suppression is declined.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4420180 — net $2,608.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$713.00		Carpet Cleaning
Remote and key replacement	$478.48		Remote and key replacement
Rubbish removal	$107.93		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$50.00		Cleaning
Missing drapes	$217.78		Missing drapes
Wall repairs	$750.00		Wall repairs
Carpet compensation	$2,991.00		Carpet compensation
Landlords time addressing breaches	$400.00		Landlords time addressing breaches
Compensation: Failure to supply working heat pump		$300.00	Failure to supply working heat pump
Compensation: Loss of amenity during building works		$250.00	Loss of amenity during building works
Total award	$6,558.19	$550.00
Net award	$2,608.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,608.19

Claims and awards for application 4420180 — net $2,608.19 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $850.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $713.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Remote and key replacement

Amount: $478.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote and key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $107.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Missing drapes

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Marnitz Moolman and Jade Moolman must pay Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth Royal $2,608.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6399568-007) to Ash Arrowsmith and Elizabeth Royal immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended. All parties appeared at the hearing today at the North Shore District Courthouse.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlords as Elizabeth Royal and Ash Arrowsmith, and the two tenants as Jade and Marnitz Moolman.
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2021, and was initially a fixed term tenancy until 14 August 2021. After that time the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. Also during the course of the tenancy, Mr Moolman moved out, with Mrs Moolman continuing as the sole tenant. Ultimately the tenancy ended following notice from the tenant, the final date of the tenancy being 6 October 2022. The weekly rental was $850.00.
As will be set out below, various disputes occurred during the tenancy, and I will set out the relevant background for those disputes below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant states that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards regulations (HHS) because the heat pump was broken for several months. The tenant says that she needed to purchase her own heaters to keep the premises warm, and the premises became mouldy over this time also.
In response, the landlord states that the issue with the heat pump started in February when the months were warmer, therefore it was no so important to have a working heat pump available. The landlord states that a contractor was arranged, and reference was made to the contractor’s report which set out the history of the repair, which included a range of difficulties and multiple failures when the circuit board was replaced. The landlord states that they did observe the tenants using a smaller heater. The landlord states that this problem occurred during a time when there were COVID restrictions. The landlord considers that they attended to the problem promptly when this issue was raised. The landlord states that the tenant only complained at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that this was only raised at the end of the tenancy, referring to communications on file where the tenant had raised ongoing concerns about delays in getting the heat pump repaired. The tenant says it was cold over that time. Further the tenant states that they were required to communicate with the contractors. The tenants say the heat pump was repaired on 11 June 2024 Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards, because during the tenancy the heat pump failed, and it was some months until it was repaired.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. A portable electric heater would be unacceptable. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity.
In this case the tenants do not dispute that the heat pump the landlord provided would not meet the HHS requirement, but their position is that over the 17 odd weeks, the heat pump was not working, that became a breach of the HHS.
In my view the landlords have likely complied with the HHS because a heat pump was installed at the start of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the heat pump failed, but that is not a breach of the HHS per se, but would be a maintenance issue for the landlord. When I consider the communications and evidence available, I accept that landlord did efficiently arrange for a contractor to attend and fix the heat pump. However it appears that despite reasonable efforts the contractor was not able to get the heat pump working, and several visits and attempts were required to get the unit operational again.
While I do not consider there has been an HHS breach from a strict perspective, it is the case that the landlord needed to provide a working heat pump, that is something the tenants were paying rent for, and they were entitled to receive a working heat pump. I accept that the tenants supplied alternate heaters that they needed to use. The tenant says that they needed to use more power for those heaters, but that has not been established in the evidence before me.
I consider that it would be reasonable for the tenants to receive some level of compensation to take account of a working heat pump not being provided, despite the fact the tenants were paying rent for that feature of the dwelling, and also needing to provide an alternate heating source.
Taking into account the period of time the tenants were without a working heat pump, and that the tenants needed to supply alternate heating, I conclude that a fair level of compensation for being without the heat pump (the tenants were paying rent to receive) would be $300.00, and that is ordered. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants says that in the last 8 odd weeks of the tenancy, there were multiple leaks in the dwelling which required a number of inspections on the part of the landlord and contractors. This included a leak to the French doors, and the landlord undertook a temporary repair. However the leak worsened, and therefore a builder undertook a further assessment, and explained that there would need to be the door removed. The tenant says that the work was then undertaken in the last week of the tenancy and that it affected her child, given the noise, dust and debris. The tenant says that she could not stay in the premises and needed to stay with a family member. The tenant said there was widespread debris in the house and garden.
The landlord referred to a letter from the builder which confirmed that the work was needed to be completed urgently, and the builders worked between 9 and 6 pm, and over three days. The French doors were removed for 4 hours but then replaced. The builder stated that the work was undertaken with the tenant present. Once watertight the work ceased, and the builder returned after the tenancy ended to finish the inside work.
Following discussion the landlord offered $121.00 (one day’s rent), but the tenant declined this offer.
The tenants considered that the landlord had underestimated the inconvenience, such as needing to look after the dog, and the mess left afterward. Analysis
As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, I consider that compensation should be provided to the tenants. The tenants have experienced an inconvenience in relation to the building work required, and to that extent, the tenants were not getting the quiet enjoyment from the tenancy they were statutorily required to receive.
That inconvenience includes (but is not limited to): a. Having builders on site for 3 days. b. Noise. c. Dust and other construction detritus. d. Decreased amenity given the plywood patch to the inside wall and floor of the house.
Some of those effects would have been present until the end of the tenancy.
The challenge with these sorts of claims is working out what a fair level of compensation would be in the circumstances. When I step back and consider matters in the round, I consider that it would be fair for the landlord to pay the tenants $250.00 compensation, just over 2 days of rent payments for the premises, and that is ordered.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Rent arrears

The landlord has claimed the last week of rent being $850.00. The tenant agrees this rent was not paid. While the tenant considers there were reasons for not paying the rent, ultimately the tenants agree it was not paid, so the claimed amount is ordered in full. Water rates
The landlord claims that the tenants owe $173.00 in water rates.
At the hearing, I asked the landlord how the water charges were calculated. The landlord advised that the full water rates invoice is split between the tenancy and another dwelling on site.
The tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi- detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA that relates to decision-making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
That means the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach that deals with the water charges on a fair basis, and splitting the accounts between dwellings would be fair in the absence of separate water meters.
However the real problem for the landlord is that the tenants have been charged the full amount of the water invoice. The tenants are not liable for the supply charges, only the consumption charges. Because the landlord has split the full water bill, that means the tenants will have been charged for water charges they are not liable to pay.
I will not express any further view on the liability of the tenant for water charges. What the landlord will now need to do, is to re-calculate the water charges over the duration of the tenancy, and that may result in an over or underpayment once that exercise has been completed. But the landlord should communicate the outcome with the tenants. I am sure the parties will be able to resolve this matter between them, but if they cannot, then either party can obtain further orders from the Tribunal around liability for water. Carpet Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $713.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord refers to the account from the carpet cleaner which confirmed that the carpets were cleaned prior to this tenancy, and at the end of this tenancy, the carpet was heavily stained from dog urine. The carpet cleaner considered that the carpets could not be further remediated.
The tenants do not dispute this claim, and agree they are liable for the carpet cleaning cost of $713.00. That claim is accordingly ordered by consent. Remote control and lock replacement
The landlord states that the tenants were provided with remote controls at the start of the tenancy, and the gate and garage remotes (two different remotes), and the house keys were not returned.
The landlord claims $230.00 for reprogramming the replacement remotes, and $170.00 for the garage remotes, and $78.48 for standard key replacement.
In response, the tenant says that some keys and remotes were returned. The tenant states that one garage remote and one gate remote was left on the premises but accepts some keys and remotes were not returned.
The landlord states that they needed to replace two remotes for the garage door and gate, because they could not replace only one for programming reasons. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
In this case that landlord has claimed for replacement remote controls for the garage and gate, and keys. The tenant accepted that not all keys and remotes were returned, but advised that one of each remote was given back to the landlord. In response the landlord advised that it was not possible to replace only one remote control, and that the minimum that could be recorded was two devices, I have no reason not to accept that.
I accept that the tenants have failed to comply with their obligation to return the remotes and keys, the landlord’s claim is reasonable and is ordered in full, that is $230.00 for reprogramming the remotes, and $170.00 for the supply of the garage remotes, and $78.48 for standard key replacement. The total amount ordered is $478.48 Rubbish removal and dump fees
The landlord seeks costs for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers photographs left by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $107.93 from Envirowaste, being two trailers of rubbish.
The tenant states that they had left a TV unit and BBQ on the premises, and some other items of rubbish. Analysis
The RTA requires that the tenants remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have not complied with that requirement. The landlord has claimed for the cost of dumping this rubbish. Given the volume of tenant rubbish, the cost seems entirely reasonable and is ordered in full. Cleaning costs
The landlord stated that she needed to take time off in order to clean the premises. The landlord states that the stone tiles at the bottom of the shower were very unclean, and the glass screen in the bathroom needed extensive cleaning. Further, the cabinetry, kitchen, oven and blinds needed cleaning. The landlord states it took some two days to clean the premises.
The landlord claims $480.00 for her time cleaning the premises and $80.00 for cleaning materials.
In response the tenant states that they submit photographs at the end of the tenancy, and they dispute that the premises were unclean. The tenant disputes that cleaning needed was at the extent the landlord claims was required. The tenants also say that there were contractors in the house after they left, that would have needed to have had cleaning at that time. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by both parties, alongside the description both parties have of the premises. In my assessment, other than the oven and shower glass, I am satisfied that the tenant has returned the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The premises were not immaculate, but that is not the standard needed. It is not uncommon for a landlord and tenant to disagree on what would be ‘reasonably’ clean, but ultimately it is the landlord who must prove the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and the adjudicator who must ultimately decide if the premises were reasonably clean.
I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show the oven and shower glass was not reasonably clean, and order that the tenant pay $50.00 for the landlord’s time and effort in cleaning those two areas. Missing drapes
The landlord states that drapes were missing from one bedroom, so they needed to find replacement drapes. The landlord claims $219.78, advising that they were brand-new at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that they were mouldy curtains that they washed, and then were damaged in the washing machine, so they were thrown out. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels, in particular drapes. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
The tenant has not disputed that the drapes were not returned. The fact that the curtains were damaged in the wash is not relevant for considering liability under this claim. The drapes were not returned, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is ordered in full to the sum of $219.78. Dog door
The landlord states that there was a dog door, and during the tenancy, the glass around the dog door became cracked.
The tenants dispute that their dog broke the dog door because it was a small dog. The tenant says it was damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord disputes that the door was damaged before the tenancy started, referring to the pre-tenancy inspections.
The landlord has not had the glass replaced at this time. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
In this case I accept that the glass at the bottom of the pet door was cracked, and I accept this probably occurred during the tenancy. But the problem for the landlord, is that the landlord has not proven that this damage would be beyond fair wear and tear.
However, even if I were wrong in that assessment, in order to succeed with this claim, I would need to be satisfied that the damage was careless or intentional damage, and I don’t believe the evidence supports either situation. It is not clear what caused the crack in the glass, but I do not consider it has been proven to the balance of probabilities that it would have arisen from carelessness or an intentional act on the part of the tenants. This claim is accordingly dismissed. Wall repairs
The landlord states that the tenants applied stick on mirror tiles onto the lounge wall. They were not removed at the end of the tenancy, but when they were removed by the landlord, it has pulled off the face of the plaster board which required plastering and repainting. The landlord states that there was damage to walls in two other rooms from affixing other things to walls.
The tenants agree that they did put these items on the walls, and that what it was stated in relation to those it items is that they could be put on the walls. The tenants consider there must have been something wrong with the paint, stating there was mould under the paint.
The landlord disputes there was anything wrong with the paint. Analysis
I accept that at the end of the tenancy, there were issues with damage to the walls, arising from the removal of mirrored tiles and other items stuck on the walls.
The tenants do not dispute sticking items on the walls, but they consider there was some defect with the paint, but they have provided no evidence to prove this. I accept the walls were damaged during the tenancy, and this damage was beyond fair wear and tear. Overall the tenant has not proven that the damage to the walls was not careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has claimed $750.00 to plaster and repaint those walls. Given there are three walls that have been damaged, I consider this claim to be reasonable, and it is ordered in full. Carpet replacement
The landlord seeks costs for carpet replacement, from dog urine staining and odours. The landlord states that the current tenants have complained about the smell of the carpet, and that they have imported a product from overseas to try to address it. The landlord says that the front lounge carpet was particularly bad,
The landlord says that the staining was in three areas, that was the Front lounge, dining room and (other) lounge.
The landlord says the carpet was new in the front lounge (supported by an invoice from 2020), with the remainder of the carpet being about three years old at the start of this tenancy.
The landlord states that the current tenants have pets but they have undertaken that once they could afford to replace the carpet they would get on and get it replaced. The landlord’s claim is based on an estimate of what it would cost to replace the carpet.
In response the tenants say that the carpet throughout the house was not in good condition (other than the lounge with new carpet). The tenants accept that their pet left some stains, but not the staining to the extent the landlords say. The tenants say that the amounts the landlord has claimed for the carpets have varied over the course of the claims.
The tenants consider that the photographs of the front lounge carpet (the new carpet) is staining from their pet, but they consider that they the staining would have been contributed to by the cleaning.
The landlord concludes by referring to the statement from the carpet cleaner confirming that the carpets were very clean at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The evidence is that the tenants dog has urinated on the carpet, causing a strong odour to continue despite commercial cleaning, and staining the carpets.
Based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that this damage occurred during this tenancy. Carpet in one of the rooms was new at the start of this tenancy, so the staining, which is extensive, must have been caused during this tenancy. I have no reason to consider that the staining shown in the other two rooms was not equally the result of dog urine from these tenants.
The damage to the carpets is well beyond fair wear and tear. The question then becomes whether it was careless or intentional damage, and I find the damage would fall into the category of intentional damage.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. That was also a case relating to dogs (two toy poodles) that would urinate inside the dwelling, damaging the carpets. The High Court concluded in that case: [41] Mr Guo accepts that one or even two stains on the carpet caused by the dogs could be accidental rather than intentional. He also accepts that the Korcks did not set out to damage the carpet. He relies on the extent of the damage, both in terms of how many rooms were affected and the number and size of the stains, to infer that the dogs urinated in the house on multiple occasions over a long period. This is a reasonable conclusion. It is also reasonable to conclude that the Korcks knew, after a few episodes of the dogs urinating inside, that further damage was certain if the dogs remained inside. The damage could have been mitigated; it was not. This, he says, determines whether the resulting damage is intentionally caused, rather than relying on any breach of the tenancy agreement. [42] I agree. I accept Mr Guo’s submission that this conclusion does not depend on a breach of the tenancy agreement. If it did, however, then the Korcks had an obligation to notify Mr Guo as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, and did not do so.17 [43] I also accept Mr Guo’s submission that permitting the dogs on the premises under the terms of the tenancy agreement did not mean that he assumed all risk of damage. He was entitled to rely on the Korcks’ assurances that the dogs were house-trained. What Mr Guo did accept was only that there would be greater wear and tear on the property because of the dogs. To that extent only, his permission for the dogs informed the tenant’s obligations. It did not mean that all damage, whatever the extent, caused by the dogs urinating on the carpet is fair wear and tear or unintentional. I record for the sake of completeness the Tribunal’s finding that the carpet had been damaged beyond fair wear and tear, requiring replacement. The Korcks do acknowledge there was some damage to the carpet. The Tribunal found that the evidence of extensive damage was compelling. There is no evidence contradicting that, even if I was permitted to re-examine the factual findings.
Following that same approach, I find that given the extensive staining, the damage falls into the intentional damage category, meaning the tenants are liable for the damage unconstrained by the insurance excess.
The question then, is what the tenant’s liability would be?
There are two broad areas of carpet damage, that is the carpet that was new at the start of the tenancy (front lounge), and the other areas which was about three years old at the start of the tenancy. The age of the carpet is relevant, because I must apply depreciation.
In relation to depreciation, I note the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR265) which records that the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years.
In relation to the carpet in the front lounge, it is reasonable to apply the cost of the carpet when it was purchased on 10 November 2020 (I do not have any better evidence of cost), which was a cost of $3,990.00. Given the estimated useful life determined by Inland Revenue (that I will apply), that means that the carpet is some 3.5 years old at this time, meaning it had 4.5 years remaining at $498 per year, being a value of $2,241.00. That amount is ordered to be paid by the tenants to the landlord.
However, in relation to the carpet in the other two areas, that is more problematic for two particular reasons. a. The landlord was not able to confirm with any precision how old that carpet actually is. b. I have not received any evidence from a carpet supplier setting out what the cost for replacing that carpet would be.
I do however accept that based on the report from the carpet cleaner, that the carpet was in reasonable condition, there is no evidence to the contrary. To that extent, I consider it likely the landlord could have expected further life in that carpet in reality, but what that would be I cannot be sure. I have determined that it is fair to order a nominal amount for carpet replacement in the other two rooms, which I set at $750.00. Labour and time
The landlord seeks $400.00 for the landlord’s time with rubbish removal, sourcing keys and remotes, and sourcing and hanging curtains. Analysis
For the reasons set out above, I find the tenants have breached their obligations to the landlord around the rubbish left on the premises, returning keys and remotes, and the curtains. It is reasonable for the landlord to be reimbursed for their time in addressing those breaches. The amount claimed for the landlord’s time seems reasonable and is ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression. However neither party has been wholly successful, and I am not persuaded that either party has been substantially successful. Therefore name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4420180 — Property damage at 6B Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4420180 — Property damage at 6B Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions