How much money was awarded in case 4506387?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506387?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506387?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9571884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4506387?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506387?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506387?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9571884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4506387 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4506387 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4506387 — net $3,800.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet, kitchen bench and stairwell damage (eight insurance excesses	$4,400.00	Carpet, kitchen bench and stairwell damage (eight insurance excesses
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Garden work	$1,500.00	Garden work
Heat pump remote	$100.00	Heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,800.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,800.44

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

Vandhna Rai and Rishabh Bhatt must pay [The landlord/s] $3,800.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Bond in the sum of $2,680 has been paid to the landlord. Background

This tenancy began in February 2021 and ended on 31 December 2022. It ended following an inspection by the landlord in August 2022 when they found the premises in an unclean condition.

The tenants occupied the premises with various house mates who moved in and out from time to time during the tenancy. There are five bedrooms in the premises, and they were mostly fully occupied during the tenancy.

The tenants had a dog in the premises during the premises. It was an indoor dog. The tenants said it was fully toilet trained and it did not toilet in the premises.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord made an insurance claim for damage to the premises. The claim was mostly accepted, and the cost of repairs and loss of rent was largely covered by the insurer. The insurer applied eight excesses corresponding to eight rooms/areas in the premises where the insurer treated the damage in those rooms/areas as one event. The landlord seeks recovery of the excesses and other uninsured losses. Relevant Law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises during the tenancy.

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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 betterment, I must consider the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Carpet and Other Damage – Insurance Excesses

The carpet in the premises was new at the start of the tenancy. It was left stained when the tenancy ended. The tenants had the carpet professionally cleaned when they vacated, but it did not remove all the stains. There were also burn marks in two of the bedrooms.

More seriously, the landlord claims that the tenant’s dog had urinated throughout the premises leaving the carpets with an unbearable odour to the extent that they had to be replaced.

The landlord said that they entered the premises after the tenants vacated the odour was immediately obvious. The insurance assessor’s report states “There is an unbearable odour in every room. It smells like dog urine and faeces and was so strong we had to go outside to get some fresh air before continuing the inspection.”

The tenants denied that there was an unpleasant odour in the premises and denied that their dog had urinated in the premises.

I prefer the evidence of the landlord and the insurance assessor’s report. The assessor is unlikely to be mistaken or to exaggerate the situation. He has no interest is doing so.

One of the tenants was out working during the week and the other was a student and often worked at home. No doubt there were times when they were both out of the premises and the dog may well have been left alone at those times. As well, the tenant left at home would not always be able to monitor the dog.

The tenants said that the dog was toilet trained and did not urinate inside. But the evidence against that is compelling. I note as well that the dog has scratched in one of the bedrooms and in the hallway and there was a considerable amount of dog faeces left in the garden when the tenancy ended. These are not indicators of responsible dog ownership. The tenants said that the landlord asked for the dog to be put in a room when she attended the premises but that does not explain or justify the situation. The tenants were responsible for ensuring that the dog did not cause damage.

I find, therefore that carpet in three bedrooms, the hallway and the living area needed to be replaced due to damage from the dog. That accounts for five excesses.

The landlord has claimed for carpet in another bedroom which was not accepted by the insurer. That raises the obvious question, why did the insurer not accept it and how does that affect the landlord’s claim?

It is possible that after the insurance claim was resolved that the landlord found the odour in the fourth bedroom to be unacceptable. The landlord, in my view, has been reasonable in her approach to this claim and I doubt that she would want the carpet replaced unless it was necessary. I therefore accept her evidence that it needed replacing due to the odour and staining.

But it follows that it should have been part of the insurance settlement. In any case, the landlord has not suggested that the damage to the premises was intentionally caused. There was no direct evidence that it was. It follows that the damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance and so the maximum award is the excess. I have therefore awarded another excess for the fourth bedroom.

There was damage to the bench top in the kitchen which the tenants rightly accepted was their responsibility. The cost of repair exceeded the excess and so another excess must be awarded for that damage.

Finally, there was damage to the stairwell, and I am satisfied that it occurred during the tenancy, it exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. The cost of repair exceeds the excess and so the landlord is entitled to another excess.

That makes a total of eight excesses of $550 and so I have awarded $4,400. Cleaning

The landlord’s evidence proved that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and I am satisfied that the landlord’s claim for $460 for the cost of cleaning is justified and reasonable. Garden Work

I accept that there was a substantial amount of dog faeces in the garden at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs provide good evidence of that. The landlord claims $500 for her own time clearing that up and disposing of it. They also claim $2,500 for restoring the lawn which they say was damaged by the tenant’s dog. I accept that dog caused some damage to the grass and dug holes in the soil.

The landlord originally had a quote for $1,500 for the garden work but the contractor then decided that he could not do the work for that price and the landlord produced an invoice for $2,500. The tenants questioned its genuineness.

The lawn was ordinary at the start of the tenancy, and I would expect it now to be in a much better condition since the work was done to it. In my assessment an award of $1,500 is reasonable for all work on the garden including the landlord’s own time. The tenants should not have to pay for improvements to the lawn. Kitchen Tap

I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenants were responsible for damage the kitchen tap during the tenancy and so I dismiss that claim. The invoice said that it was possibly due to being forced. Wall Damage

I am also not satisfied that damage to a wall for which the landlord claims $100 occurred during the tenancy and so I dismiss that claim. I note there was a mark on the wall that could possibly have been left by a dog paw but that does not prove that the dog caused the damage. The proof of loss was also lacking. Smoke Alarms

I accept the tenants’ evidence that they removed smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy to change the batteries and did not refit them. There is no evidence that they were removed during the tenancy. The claim for exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms is therefore dismissed. Heat Pump Remote

The tenants did not dispute this claim. Filing Fee

The landlord has had substantial success and so I award them the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord has had substantial success and so I have granted their request for name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4506387 — net $3,800.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet, kitchen bench and stairwell damage (eight insurance excesses	$4,400.00	Carpet, kitchen bench and stairwell damage (eight insurance excesses
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Garden work	$1,500.00	Garden work
Heat pump remote	$100.00	Heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,800.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,800.44