What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570017 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4570017?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,685.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570017?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570017?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405935-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570017 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4570017?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,685.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570017?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570017?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405935-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Shearwater Street, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570017 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570017 — net $1,625.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 January 2023	$3,685.00		Rent arrears to 11 January 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$2,080.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,705.44	$2,080.00
Net award	$1,625.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.44

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2023.

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, carpet replacement (to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess), and loss of opportunity to rent.

The hearing took place by phone on 1 September 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. Rent arrears

The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $3,685.00 to 11 January 2023.

Ms Hindrupp did not dispute that figure. Carpet replacement

Ms Knier submitted that: a. Ms Hindrupp was permitted to have a dog at the property. b. At the end of the tenancy Ms Hindrupp had the carpets cleaned. c. At the final inspection, she noted a strong chemical smell which Ms Hindrupp assured her was due to the carpet cleaning. d. She left the property to air for several days, but the smell did not dissipate. e. She arranged for Carpet Cleaning Whangarei to carry out further cleaning. f. Carpet Cleaning Whangarei carried out further cleaning on 18 January, and then returned to the property on 24 January to assess its condition. g. Carpet Cleaning Whangarei advised that “there is still very strong smells of dog urine and stains”. h. She involved her insurer. i. The insurer settled the claim for carpet replacement but applied four excesses totalling $2,800.00.

Ms Hindrupp submitted that: a. Her dog did not have any ‘accidents’ on the carpet during the tenancy. b. The previous tenants had two dogs during their tenancy.

In any claim for damage the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.

Ms Knier purchased the property in 2009. She put new carpet in the property sometime between 2015 and 2018 (she could not recall the date). Before Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy, the property was rented to a couple who had two dogs, but Ms Knier submitted that the dogs were kept in the garage.

Ms Hindrupp submitted that she knows the previous tenants and she disputed whether the dogs were in fact kept in the garage.

When Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy began there was a significant flea infestation inside (and outside) the house.

Although the Whangarei Carpet Cleaning report refers to stains, neither Ms Knier nor Ms Hindrupp noticed any stains at the beginning of the tenancy, during the tenancy, or at the end of the tenancy. Ms Knier carried out regular inspections during the tenancy.

Ms Knier submitted that the dark grey colour of the carpet concealed the stains.

I was not provided with any photographs showing staining on the underside of the carpet or on the underlay after the carpet was lifted.

Neither Ms Knier nor Ms Hindrupp noticed any smell from the carpet during the tenancy. It seems that the bad smell did not manifest until Ms Hindrupp had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

The complete absence of any evidence of stains or smell during the tenancy is difficult to reconcile with Whangarei Carpet Cleaning’s statement that the carpet was so contaminated with pet urine that it required replacement.

However, I acknowledge that Whangarei Carpet Cleaning are qualified to assess the condition of the carpet and that they did in fact assess it.

I accept the contents of the Whangarei Carpet Cleaning report.

I must also accept that, for reasons that are difficult to explain or understand, the damage was not detectable by sight or smell throughout Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy, until the carpet was cleaned.

This introduces the real possibility that the damage might have been present, unseen and undetected, at the beginning of Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy.

The circumstances are very unusual, and the claim is finely balanced. However, applying the principle that the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy, my finding is that there is a reasonable possibility that the carpet damage was present when Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy began.

Therefore I must find that the landlord has not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the carpet damage occurred during the period of Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy.

The claim for replacement of the carpet, and the related claim for loss of rent due to the carpet replacement, must be dismissed. Filing fee, bond

Ms Knier has been partially successful in this application, and I will award Ms Knier the application fee of $20.44.

The bond has already been released to Ms Knier. N Blake, 13 September 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570017 — net $1,625.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 January 2023	$3,685.00		Rent arrears to 11 January 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$2,080.00	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,705.44	$2,080.00
Net award	$1,625.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,625.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, carpet replacement (to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess), and loss of opportunity to rent.
The hearing took place by phone on 1 September 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $3,685.00 to 11 January 2023.
Ms Hindrupp did not dispute that figure. Carpet replacement
Ms Knier submitted that: a. Ms Hindrupp was permitted to have a dog at the property. b. At the end of the tenancy Ms Hindrupp had the carpets cleaned. c. At the final inspection, she noted a strong chemical smell which Ms Hindrupp assured her was due to the carpet cleaning. d. She left the property to air for several days, but the smell did not dissipate. e. She arranged for Carpet Cleaning Whangarei to carry out further cleaning. f. Carpet Cleaning Whangarei carried out further cleaning on 18 January, and then returned to the property on 24 January to assess its condition. g. Carpet Cleaning Whangarei advised that “there is still very strong smells of dog urine and stains”. h. She involved her insurer. i. The insurer settled the claim for carpet replacement but applied four excesses totalling $2,800.00.
Ms Hindrupp submitted that: a. Her dog did not have any ‘accidents’ on the carpet during the tenancy. b. The previous tenants had two dogs during their tenancy.
In any claim for damage the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.
Ms Knier purchased the property in 2009. She put new carpet in the property sometime between 2015 and 2018 (she could not recall the date). Before Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy, the property was rented to a couple who had two dogs, but Ms Knier submitted that the dogs were kept in the garage.
Ms Hindrupp submitted that she knows the previous tenants and she disputed whether the dogs were in fact kept in the garage.
When Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy began there was a significant flea infestation inside (and outside) the house.
Although the Whangarei Carpet Cleaning report refers to stains, neither Ms Knier nor Ms Hindrupp noticed any stains at the beginning of the tenancy, during the tenancy, or at the end of the tenancy. Ms Knier carried out regular inspections during the tenancy.
Ms Knier submitted that the dark grey colour of the carpet concealed the stains.
I was not provided with any photographs showing staining on the underside of the carpet or on the underlay after the carpet was lifted.
Neither Ms Knier nor Ms Hindrupp noticed any smell from the carpet during the tenancy. It seems that the bad smell did not manifest until Ms Hindrupp had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The complete absence of any evidence of stains or smell during the tenancy is difficult to reconcile with Whangarei Carpet Cleaning’s statement that the carpet was so contaminated with pet urine that it required replacement.
However, I acknowledge that Whangarei Carpet Cleaning are qualified to assess the condition of the carpet and that they did in fact assess it.
I accept the contents of the Whangarei Carpet Cleaning report.
I must also accept that, for reasons that are difficult to explain or understand, the damage was not detectable by sight or smell throughout Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy, until the carpet was cleaned.
This introduces the real possibility that the damage might have been present, unseen and undetected, at the beginning of Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy.
The circumstances are very unusual, and the claim is finely balanced. However, applying the principle that the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy, my finding is that there is a reasonable possibility that the carpet damage was present when Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy began.
Therefore I must find that the landlord has not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the carpet damage occurred during the period of Ms Hindrupp’s tenancy.
The claim for replacement of the carpet, and the related claim for loss of rent due to the carpet replacement, must be dismissed. Filing fee, bond
Ms Knier has been partially successful in this application, and I will award Ms Knier the application fee of $20.44.
The bond has already been released to Ms Knier. N Blake, 13 September 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570017 — Rent arrears at 25 Shearwater Street, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570017 — Rent arrears at 25 Shearwater Street, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions