What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4491385?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4491385?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4491385?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4491385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9228629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4491385?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4491385?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4491385?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4491385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9228629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Jackson Place, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4491385 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4491385 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet Damage Compensation	$300.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet Damage Compensation
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jennifer Lindsay to pay Graham Bastow and Kerry Bastow $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3088376-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Graham Bastow and Kerry Bastow: $300.00 Jennifer Lindsay: $700.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to carpet and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says that the tenant spilt hair dye on the carpet in the living room. The tenant has never disputed this. Neither party had the stain professionally treated at the time of the accident.
The landlord has claimed for carpet replacement costs, to the sum of $1824.20. The carpet is yet to be replaced and the amount sought by the landlord is only a quote. The landlord further stated that they are holding off replacing the living room carpet as eventually they will need to replace the entire carpet throughout the house. They stated that the existing carpet is no longer available and that all carpet would need replacing so that it matches.
As noted, the tenant does not dispute the accidental damage. I also accept that there is no evidence suggesting that it was intentional. The tenant states that while she accepts the damage it is not for her to fund replacement carpet.
The landlord has provided a quote confirming the replacement cost for the living room carpet. The landlord is uncertain of the precise age for the carpet but estimate the carpet to be between 5 and 10 years old. Limited photographic evidence provided by the landlord show that the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. The extent of the damage would be careless.
The tenant has not returned the carpet reasonably clean. The Tribunal must apply depreciation, and if the depreciation was approached applying the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265), then the conclusion would be reached that the carpet was near the end of its useful life. However, again the ingoing photographs showed the carpet in reasonable condition, I am not persuaded that the carpet would necessarily be at the end of its life for a residential tenancy. On balance I consider that some compensation should be provided for loss of amenity for the carpet, and I consider that an amount at $300 would be reasonable. I make the observation that if the landlord had the carpet commercially cleaned, I would have anticipated a cost for that work, around that $300.00 mark.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord is not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4491385 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet Damage Compensation	$300.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet Damage Compensation
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jennifer Lindsay to pay Graham Bastow and Kerry Bastow $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3088376-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Graham Bastow and Kerry Bastow: $300.00 Jennifer Lindsay: $700.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to carpet and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says that the tenant spilt hair dye on the carpet in the living room. The tenant has never disputed this. Neither party had the stain professionally treated at the time of the accident.
The landlord has claimed for carpet replacement costs, to the sum of $1824.20. The carpet is yet to be replaced and the amount sought by the landlord is only a quote. The landlord further stated that they are holding off replacing the living room carpet as eventually they will need to replace the entire carpet throughout the house. They stated that the existing carpet is no longer available and that all carpet would need replacing so that it matches.
As noted, the tenant does not dispute the accidental damage. I also accept that there is no evidence suggesting that it was intentional. The tenant states that while she accepts the damage it is not for her to fund replacement carpet.
The landlord has provided a quote confirming the replacement cost for the living room carpet. The landlord is uncertain of the precise age for the carpet but estimate the carpet to be between 5 and 10 years old. Limited photographic evidence provided by the landlord show that the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. The extent of the damage would be careless.
The tenant has not returned the carpet reasonably clean. The Tribunal must apply depreciation, and if the depreciation was approached applying the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265), then the conclusion would be reached that the carpet was near the end of its useful life. However, again the ingoing photographs showed the carpet in reasonable condition, I am not persuaded that the carpet would necessarily be at the end of its life for a residential tenancy. On balance I consider that some compensation should be provided for loss of amenity for the carpet, and I consider that an amount at $300 would be reasonable. I make the observation that if the landlord had the carpet commercially cleaned, I would have anticipated a cost for that work, around that $300.00 mark.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord is not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4491385 — Property damage at 2 Jackson Place, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4491385 — Property damage at 2 Jackson Place, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions