What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4546491 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4546491?

And The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $1,275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9096198-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4546491 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4546491?

And The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $1,275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9096198-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 87 Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4546491 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546491. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details. 2. Neville Hargreaves is to pay [T	$1,275.00		and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details. 2. Neville Hargreaves is to pay [T

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet was very dirty and soiled with human faeces. The Tenant described the smell as unbearable.

I have awarded the landlord the cost of carpet cleaning: $80.00

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.

Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy of Neville Hargreaves. The damage includes stains from spillages and faeces, which are beyond normal wear and tear.

The landlord claimed that the cost to change the carpet in the bedroom and hallway is approximately $1,700. However, the Tribunal must consider what is “reasonable,” as highlighted in Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8, given the condition of the carpet before and after the tenancy, and the IRD’s General Depreciation Determination DEP80, which confirms the realisable life expectancy for carpet in a residential tenancy is eight years.

The carpet was two years old at the beginning of Neville Hargreaves’ tenancy and was in good condition. While the landlord maintains the carpet must be removed due to its unbearable odour, the landlord has not presented any independent expert evidence in this regard. However, I find the Landlord’s photographs show the carpet has been soiled on more than one occasion and, while I cannot conclude the origin of these marks, I gather they are human or animal excrement given the landlord’s evidence.

Using the IRD’s General Depreciation Determination DEP80 which estimates the useful life of a carpet to be eight years, the Tribunal acknowledges that, at the commencement of Neville's tenancy, the carpet had an estimated six years of its useful life remaining.

Considering its total useful life of eight years, the annual depreciation for the carpet, using its replacement value of $1,700, is $1,700/8 = $212.50.

Therefore, the depreciated value of the carpet at the time of damage is, notionally, $212.50 * 6 = $1,275.

Given that the carpet needs to be replaced to make the premises tenantable, Neville should be responsible for the depreciated value of the carpet based on its remaining useful life at the time the damage occurred.

Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to an amount which accounts for these considerations.

The landlord claimed insurance for the damage.

As per section 49B(3)(a) RTA, Neville’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.

Considering Neville Hargreaves’ intellectual disability, I would have concluded the damage was caused carelessly and not intentionally, based on the understanding that Neville’s condition played a significant role in his behaviour and the ensuing damage.

However, the tenant’s caregivers, who were present at the premises with Neville's permission, are also, potentially, part of this careless behaviour as per sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B RTA. Because the stains are so widespread, the damage stems from a series of incidents, or accidents. The extent of the stains across the carpet suggests a level of neglect and reckless disregard for property by Neville’s caregivers in my view.

Ultimately, Neville is liable for the damages, and I find the damages to be intentional.

As for the additional damages, such as the broken queen bed, the respondent is liable for the repair or replacement cost of the damaged property, but I have no further evidence from the Landlord establishing loss.

Because the Landlord has been successful in its claim, I grant its request for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546491. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details. 2. Neville Hargreaves is to pay [T	$1,275.00		and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details. 2. Neville Hargreaves is to pay [T

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet was very dirty and soiled with human faeces. The Tenant described the smell as unbearable.

I have awarded the landlord the cost of carpet cleaning: $80.00

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Considering its total useful life of eight years, the annual depreciation for the carpet, using its replacement value of $1,700, is $1,700/8 = $212.50.

Therefore, the depreciated value of the carpet at the time of damage is, notionally, $212.50 * 6 = $1,275.

Tribunal finds that the landlord is entitled to an amount which accounts for these considerations.

The landlord claimed insurance for the damage.

As per section 49B(3)(a) RTA, Neville’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.

Ultimately, Neville is liable for the damages, and I find the damages to be intentional.

Because the Landlord has been successful in its claim, I grant its request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546491 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 87 Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546491 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 87 Mallard Drive, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions