What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4554969 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 4554969?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554969?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9288232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4554969 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 4554969?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554969?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9288232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Bomb Point Drive, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4554969 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

10 Bomb Point Drive, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4554969 — Rent arrears | 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 4554969 — net $3,596.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$330.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$107.93	Water rates
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$6,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Net award	$3,596.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,596.37

Claims and awards for application 4554969 — net $3,596.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $330.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $107.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Replace furnishings: Carpet

Amount: $6,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Prasanna Kumar must pay [The landlord/s] $3,596.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $330.00 for rent arrears and $107.93 for water rates. The tenant accepted these amounts.

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.
The tenant accepted that at the end of the tenancy there was still a small amount of cleaning required. The landlord provided an invoice for $138.00 for cleaning and Mr Kumar accepted responsibility for that charge.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Pet urine causing bleaching to the carpet in bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3, bedroom 4, the lounge area and the hallway/ landing.
A pet unexpectedly urinating on a carpet inside a house can be regarded as carelessness by the tenant. Where a pet repeatedly urinates on a carpet inside a house and the owner fails to prevent it happening, this goes beyond carelessness; the landlord is responsible for the pet and the pet’s behaviour and failing to prevent the pet’s misbehaviour becomes a deliberate or intentional act by the tenant. This was the situation considered by the High Court in the Guo decision noted above.
The landlord has an insurance policy, but the policy expressly excludes damage cause by pet urine.
Mr Kumar accepts that his pet urinated repeatedly on the carpet inside the house but explained that it occurred during a COVID-19 level-4 lockdown when it wasn’t possible to get a trainer for his pet.
Mr Kumar stated that before he moved into the house the carpet from the garage had been removed because of damage caused by a previous tenant’s pet urinating on the carpet. Mr Kumar stated that he believed there were marks already on the carpet that his pet urinated on at the beginning of his tenancy.
The landlord provided a large number of photos from the beginning of the tenancy, photographs from inspections throughout the tenancy and photographs from the final inspection. Despite Mr Kumar’s assertions, the photos from the beginning of the tenancy do not show any signs of carpet damage. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show various amounts of damage to the carpet in different rooms; in some of the rooms the damage is extensive.
The landlord stated the house was built in 2017 and the damaged carpet was a good quality wool carpet installed at the time the house was built. The Kumars were the second tenants of the property and moved in in July 2019. At the point the Kumars moved out, the carpet was five and a half years old.
The landlord stated the useable lifespan of a wool carpet is fifteen years, compared to eight years for a nylon carpet.
The IRD Depreciation Schedule states that a wool carpet has a life span of eight years and the depreciation rate is 25% per year.
The also landlord provided information from Harrisons Carpet and Flooring that states that a wool carpet has a life span of 15 to 25 years.
Clearly the lifespan of different carpets varies, and the lifespan of similar carpets will vary depending on their application.
This was a rental situation, the carpet was light coloured and the tenancy agreement allowed pets. The wear and tear on a light-coloured carpet in a rental situation with pets is not going to be at the lower end of the spectrum.
I consider that in the circumstances, the IRD Schedule is likely to be the most accurate, and that eight years for a light-coloured woollen carpet in a rental property that allows pets is a reasonable expectation. Photographs of the lounge from the exit inspection show general wear-marks and light staining that support this: The carpet there is no longer looking bright and new, despite no extensive damage from pet urine.
Mr Kumar’s concern that there was already some damage to areas of the carpet later damaged by his pet’s urine, while not supported by the photographic evidence, is not unrealistic, and depreciation for the period before he moved into the property will account for this.
According to the landlord, the cost to replace the carpet with a similar wool carpet from Harrisons is $12,780.00. However the landlord chose to replace the damaged carpet with a solution-dyed nylon carpet for which the all up cost was $8999.00.
The Kumars had paid a weekly rent of $770.00. After the carpet was replaced the landlord re-tenanted the property for $850.00 per week.
The purpose of compensation is to re-instate the person to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred.
To all intents and purposes this has been achieved by installing a carpet at a lower price than the original carpet cost. The only party that may suffer a lower level of amenity from the new solution-dyed nylon carpet as compared to an all wool carpet, is the new tenant; and they did not experience the amenity of the wool carpet.
There is no purpose in charging the Kumars for the original carpet, when the landlord had suffered no loss in amenity by installing a new, but arguably lower quality carpet. Without the benefit of experts, the relative suitability of each carpet is difficult to assess; as noted above, the rent increased after the new carpet was installed.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 4554969 — net $3,596.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$330.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$107.93	Water rates
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$6,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Net award	$3,596.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,596.37

Claims and awards for application 4554969 — net $3,596.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $330.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $107.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Replace furnishings: Carpet

Amount: $6,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Prasanna Kumar must pay [The landlord/s] $3,596.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $330.00 for rent arrears and $107.93 for water rates. The tenant accepted these amounts.

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.
The tenant accepted that at the end of the tenancy there was still a small amount of cleaning required. The landlord provided an invoice for $138.00 for cleaning and Mr Kumar accepted responsibility for that charge.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Pet urine causing bleaching to the carpet in bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3, bedroom 4, the lounge area and the hallway/ landing.
A pet unexpectedly urinating on a carpet inside a house can be regarded as carelessness by the tenant. Where a pet repeatedly urinates on a carpet inside a house and the owner fails to prevent it happening, this goes beyond carelessness; the landlord is responsible for the pet and the pet’s behaviour and failing to prevent the pet’s misbehaviour becomes a deliberate or intentional act by the tenant. This was the situation considered by the High Court in the Guo decision noted above.
The landlord has an insurance policy, but the policy expressly excludes damage cause by pet urine.
Mr Kumar accepts that his pet urinated repeatedly on the carpet inside the house but explained that it occurred during a COVID-19 level-4 lockdown when it wasn’t possible to get a trainer for his pet.
Mr Kumar stated that before he moved into the house the carpet from the garage had been removed because of damage caused by a previous tenant’s pet urinating on the carpet. Mr Kumar stated that he believed there were marks already on the carpet that his pet urinated on at the beginning of his tenancy.
The landlord provided a large number of photos from the beginning of the tenancy, photographs from inspections throughout the tenancy and photographs from the final inspection. Despite Mr Kumar’s assertions, the photos from the beginning of the tenancy do not show any signs of carpet damage. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show various amounts of damage to the carpet in different rooms; in some of the rooms the damage is extensive.
The landlord stated the house was built in 2017 and the damaged carpet was a good quality wool carpet installed at the time the house was built. The Kumars were the second tenants of the property and moved in in July 2019. At the point the Kumars moved out, the carpet was five and a half years old.
The landlord stated the useable lifespan of a wool carpet is fifteen years, compared to eight years for a nylon carpet.
The IRD Depreciation Schedule states that a wool carpet has a life span of eight years and the depreciation rate is 25% per year.
The also landlord provided information from Harrisons Carpet and Flooring that states that a wool carpet has a life span of 15 to 25 years.
Clearly the lifespan of different carpets varies, and the lifespan of similar carpets will vary depending on their application.
This was a rental situation, the carpet was light coloured and the tenancy agreement allowed pets. The wear and tear on a light-coloured carpet in a rental situation with pets is not going to be at the lower end of the spectrum.
I consider that in the circumstances, the IRD Schedule is likely to be the most accurate, and that eight years for a light-coloured woollen carpet in a rental property that allows pets is a reasonable expectation. Photographs of the lounge from the exit inspection show general wear-marks and light staining that support this: The carpet there is no longer looking bright and new, despite no extensive damage from pet urine.
Mr Kumar’s concern that there was already some damage to areas of the carpet later damaged by his pet’s urine, while not supported by the photographic evidence, is not unrealistic, and depreciation for the period before he moved into the property will account for this.
According to the landlord, the cost to replace the carpet with a similar wool carpet from Harrisons is $12,780.00. However the landlord chose to replace the damaged carpet with a solution-dyed nylon carpet for which the all up cost was $8999.00.
The Kumars had paid a weekly rent of $770.00. After the carpet was replaced the landlord re-tenanted the property for $850.00 per week.
The purpose of compensation is to re-instate the person to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred.
To all intents and purposes this has been achieved by installing a carpet at a lower price than the original carpet cost. The only party that may suffer a lower level of amenity from the new solution-dyed nylon carpet as compared to an all wool carpet, is the new tenant; and they did not experience the amenity of the wool carpet.
There is no purpose in charging the Kumars for the original carpet, when the landlord had suffered no loss in amenity by installing a new, but arguably lower quality carpet. Without the benefit of experts, the relative suitability of each carpet is difficult to assess; as noted above, the rent increased after the new carpet was installed.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554969 — Rent arrears at 10 Bomb Point Drive, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554969 — Rent arrears at 10 Bomb Point Drive, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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