How much money was awarded in case 4503410?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4503410?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4503410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9079251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4503410?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4503410?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4503410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9079251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4503410 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4503410 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4503410 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess on carpet damage	$350.00	tart of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I order the tenant to pay $350.00 towards the excess.
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited $350.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited: $350.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,410.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. There had been a previous mediated order between the parties. The order resulted in there being a limited number of remaining issues: namely • The tenants wanted the release of the bond. • The landlord claimed $750.00 in compensation, being the insurance excess on their insurance policy for damage caused by the tenants to a carpet and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $750.00.

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.

An area of carpet in a bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepted that the red stain on the carpet had been caused by them as a result of one of the tenants being sick on the carpet. I accept that the damage was not intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The carpet is 15 years old. The stain could not be removed from the carpet despite it being commercially cleaned.

The landlord contacted Carpet Court. They provided a quote to replace the carpet in the bedroom. The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy. That claim was accepted and the excess of $750.00 has been paid by the landlord.

The only real dispute between the parties was as to the depreciated value of the carpet. The landlord evidence supported by Carpet Court that this was carpet in good condition for carpet that was 15 years old.

The IRD residential tenancy depreciation guide gives an estimated life for carpet in a residential tenancy of between 8 and 15 years.

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. I order the tenant to pay $350.00 towards the excess.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order regarding the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. By a fine margin, I find that the tenants have been substantially successful and name suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4503410 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess on carpet damage	$350.00	tart of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I order the tenant to pay $350.00 towards the excess.
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited $350.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited: $350.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,410.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. There had been a previous mediated order between the parties. The order resulted in there being a limited number of remaining issues: namely • The tenants wanted the release of the bond. • The landlord claimed $750.00 in compensation, being the insurance excess on their insurance policy for damage caused by the tenants to a carpet and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $750.00.
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.
An area of carpet in a bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepted that the red stain on the carpet had been caused by them as a result of one of the tenants being sick on the carpet. I accept that the damage was not intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The carpet is 15 years old. The stain could not be removed from the carpet despite it being commercially cleaned.
The landlord contacted Carpet Court. They provided a quote to replace the carpet in the bedroom. The landlord made a claim on their insurance policy. That claim was accepted and the excess of $750.00 has been paid by the landlord.
The only real dispute between the parties was as to the depreciated value of the carpet. The landlord evidence supported by Carpet Court that this was carpet in good condition for carpet that was 15 years old.
The IRD residential tenancy depreciation guide gives an estimated life for carpet in a residential tenancy of between 8 and 15 years.
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. I order the tenant to pay $350.00 towards the excess.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. By a fine margin, I find that the tenants have been substantially successful and name suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4503410 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4503410 — Property damage

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