How much money was awarded in case 4556897?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556897?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9203424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4556897?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556897?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9203424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Garvins Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556897 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556897 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 4556897 — net $120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$20.44	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$120.44
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.44

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

[The tenant/s] to pay Vision Property Management Limited $120.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Vision Property Management Limited: $120.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,779.56

The landlord’s claim for an insurance excess for replacement carpet is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 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 claimed that carpet in one bedroom was damaged during the tenancy and requires replacement. The landlord claimed a stain treatment charge of $100 and an insurance excess of $550.

The landlord referred to an ingoing inspection report, photographs from 4 days before the start of the tenancy, photographs at the end of the tenancy and photographs after stain treatment of the carpet.

The tenant said that she had never received the ingoing property inspection report and if she had, she would have immediately raised issues with the landlord. She says that the report does not accurately reflect the ingoing condition of the property in a number of respects.

The tenant also said that the photographs do not establish that staining or damage occurred during the tenancy. She said the different appearance is a result of the grain or pile of the carpet being pushed in different directions. I have reviewed all of the photographs. They do establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

The existence of stains is supported by the invoice from the stain removal company which records “multiple blue and yellow/orange stains to carpet. There is no evidence of blue or yellow staining on the ingoing photographs. The marks the tenant directed me to on the ingoing photographs were dark in colour or, as the landlord said, were furniture indents. Those marks were not evident at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for stain treatment of $100. That amount is awarded.

The landlord also claimed an insurance excess of $550 and provided a copy of the insurance policy schedule. Section 49B(3)(a) RTA limits or caps the tenant’s liability for certain damage. The landlord must still establish that it has, in fact, suffered the loss claimed.

The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. The landlord has not made an insurance claim for carpet damage and has not replaced the carpet. The landlord did not establish that it has suffered the loss claimed. The claim for an insurance excess is dismissed.

As the landlord was partially successful with its claim, I have awarded reimbursement of its filing fee. The tenant was also partially successful, in that she defended the claim for the insurance excess, so I have granted her request for suppression of her name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4556897 — net $120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$20.44	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$120.44
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
[The tenant/s] to pay Vision Property Management Limited $120.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Vision Property Management Limited: $120.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,779.56
The landlord’s claim for an insurance excess for replacement carpet is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 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 claimed that carpet in one bedroom was damaged during the tenancy and requires replacement. The landlord claimed a stain treatment charge of $100 and an insurance excess of $550.
The landlord referred to an ingoing inspection report, photographs from 4 days before the start of the tenancy, photographs at the end of the tenancy and photographs after stain treatment of the carpet.
The tenant said that she had never received the ingoing property inspection report and if she had, she would have immediately raised issues with the landlord. She says that the report does not accurately reflect the ingoing condition of the property in a number of respects.
The tenant also said that the photographs do not establish that staining or damage occurred during the tenancy. She said the different appearance is a result of the grain or pile of the carpet being pushed in different directions. I have reviewed all of the photographs. They do establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The existence of stains is supported by the invoice from the stain removal company which records “multiple blue and yellow/orange stains to carpet. There is no evidence of blue or yellow staining on the ingoing photographs. The marks the tenant directed me to on the ingoing photographs were dark in colour or, as the landlord said, were furniture indents. Those marks were not evident at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for stain treatment of $100. That amount is awarded.
The landlord also claimed an insurance excess of $550 and provided a copy of the insurance policy schedule. Section 49B(3)(a) RTA limits or caps the tenant’s liability for certain damage. The landlord must still establish that it has, in fact, suffered the loss claimed.
The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. The landlord has not made an insurance claim for carpet damage and has not replaced the carpet. The landlord did not establish that it has suffered the loss claimed. The claim for an insurance excess is dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful with its claim, I have awarded reimbursement of its filing fee. The tenant was also partially successful, in that she defended the claim for the insurance excess, so I have granted her request for suppression of her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556897 — Cleanliness at 32 Garvins Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556897 — Cleanliness at 32 Garvins Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions