What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4576068 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 4576068?

Carpet: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,682.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4576068?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4576068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9415134-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4576068 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 4576068?

Carpet: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,682.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4576068?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4576068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9415134-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4576068 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4576068 — net $2,752.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet	$2,700.00	Carpet
Painting	$1,682.00	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,752.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,752.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Bronya Brace must pay [The landlord/s] $2,752.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The property manager/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The property manager/s] from [The property management company] attended with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the bond. Tenant’s Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
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 depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Carpet
The landlord claims $2,700 for carpet damage. He says that the carpet was contaminated with cat urine during the tenancy to the extent that it had to be replaced. The cost of replacing the carpet is $17,500 and the landlord’s insurance claim has been accepted subject to 6 excesses of $450 making a total of $2,700.
I am satisfied that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy to the extent that it had to be replaced. The tenant did not seriously dispute it. She had an accident while she was the tenant and took on an extra dog. She was therefore less able to manage the animals she had in the premises. I am satisfied that the carpet needed to be replaced due to the tenant’s carelessness during the tenancy.
The tenant said that it is likely that the carpet was the original carpet from when the premises were built, thirty years ago, and therefore it was at the end of its life. She produced photographs that showed some extreme wear and damage in places. That said, the evidence overall shows that the carpet was not at the end of its life and that it had some useful life remaining.
Plainly, it is right to apply a discount to the cost of replacing the carpet for betterment. I accept that the carpet was far from new. But I would have to apply a discount of over 80% before the resulting award fell below the value of the excesses. In my view that would not be justified. Even after applying appropriate betterment to the cost of replacing the carpet, the resulting loss would exceed the insurance excesses that are claimed.
I have therefore awarded the sum of $2,700 as claimed. Painting
There was some damage to walls during the tenancy from fixings and other damage. The tenant tried to repair the wall damage and paint the affected areas. The paint colour did not quite match, and the result was a patchwork of a colour that differed from the rest of the wall. Plainly that was not an acceptable finish.
The landlord claims seven excess amounting to $3,150. He tried to argue with his insurer that it was one event (the tenant carried out the repairs and painting on one day), but they did not accept that and applied an excess for each of the rooms affected.
I questioned the insurer’s approach during the hearing but, on reflexion, I accept that it is a justifiable approach. The original damage from fixings and another causes, happened at different times and it is arguable that it is the original damage that should determine how many incidents of damage there were. As well, the repairs may have been carried out on one day, but they too were distinct acts that occurred at different times.
The tenant said that the landlord had told her that he intended moving into the premises and redecorating them. If that were true, the painting would have been done in any case and it could not be said that the tenant’s damage caused the landlord to incur the cost of the painting.
The landlord denied that he intended moving back into the premises. He said that he was intending to move into town. There is no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s evidence and of course the landlord could change his mind. I note also that if the tenant believed that the landlord would be redecorating, why would she bother painting the walls?
The tenant said that there was no damage or painting to one of the rooms included in the landlord’s calin, the ensuite bathroom. The photographs showing the damage left something to be desired and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved tenant damage to the ensuite.
The landlord’s claim cannot therefore exceed six excesses totalling $2,700.
But I must also consider betterment. The landlord couldn’t say when the premises was last decorated. I think it is reasonable to apply a discount of 50% in the circumstances. Not all the painting was needed due to the tenant’s damage. It would be fair to say that half was down to tenant’s damage.
Applying those discounts results in the tenant being liable for 25% of the painting costs being $1,682 and that is what I have awarded. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee. For the same reason I have granted the landlord name suppression. Tenant’s Application
The tenant will not recover the bond and so her application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4576068 — net $2,752.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet	$2,700.00	Carpet
Painting	$1,682.00	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,752.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,752.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Bronya Brace must pay [The landlord/s] $2,752.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The property manager/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The property manager/s] from [The property management company] attended with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the bond. Tenant’s Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
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 depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Carpet
The landlord claims $2,700 for carpet damage. He says that the carpet was contaminated with cat urine during the tenancy to the extent that it had to be replaced. The cost of replacing the carpet is $17,500 and the landlord’s insurance claim has been accepted subject to 6 excesses of $450 making a total of $2,700.
I am satisfied that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy to the extent that it had to be replaced. The tenant did not seriously dispute it. She had an accident while she was the tenant and took on an extra dog. She was therefore less able to manage the animals she had in the premises. I am satisfied that the carpet needed to be replaced due to the tenant’s carelessness during the tenancy.
The tenant said that it is likely that the carpet was the original carpet from when the premises were built, thirty years ago, and therefore it was at the end of its life. She produced photographs that showed some extreme wear and damage in places. That said, the evidence overall shows that the carpet was not at the end of its life and that it had some useful life remaining.
Plainly, it is right to apply a discount to the cost of replacing the carpet for betterment. I accept that the carpet was far from new. But I would have to apply a discount of over 80% before the resulting award fell below the value of the excesses. In my view that would not be justified. Even after applying appropriate betterment to the cost of replacing the carpet, the resulting loss would exceed the insurance excesses that are claimed.
I have therefore awarded the sum of $2,700 as claimed. Painting
There was some damage to walls during the tenancy from fixings and other damage. The tenant tried to repair the wall damage and paint the affected areas. The paint colour did not quite match, and the result was a patchwork of a colour that differed from the rest of the wall. Plainly that was not an acceptable finish.
The landlord claims seven excess amounting to $3,150. He tried to argue with his insurer that it was one event (the tenant carried out the repairs and painting on one day), but they did not accept that and applied an excess for each of the rooms affected.
I questioned the insurer’s approach during the hearing but, on reflexion, I accept that it is a justifiable approach. The original damage from fixings and another causes, happened at different times and it is arguable that it is the original damage that should determine how many incidents of damage there were. As well, the repairs may have been carried out on one day, but they too were distinct acts that occurred at different times.
The tenant said that the landlord had told her that he intended moving into the premises and redecorating them. If that were true, the painting would have been done in any case and it could not be said that the tenant’s damage caused the landlord to incur the cost of the painting.
The landlord denied that he intended moving back into the premises. He said that he was intending to move into town. There is no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s evidence and of course the landlord could change his mind. I note also that if the tenant believed that the landlord would be redecorating, why would she bother painting the walls?
The tenant said that there was no damage or painting to one of the rooms included in the landlord’s calin, the ensuite bathroom. The photographs showing the damage left something to be desired and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved tenant damage to the ensuite.
The landlord’s claim cannot therefore exceed six excesses totalling $2,700.
But I must also consider betterment. The landlord couldn’t say when the premises was last decorated. I think it is reasonable to apply a discount of 50% in the circumstances. Not all the painting was needed due to the tenant’s damage. It would be fair to say that half was down to tenant’s damage.
Applying those discounts results in the tenant being liable for 25% of the painting costs being $1,682 and that is what I have awarded. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee. For the same reason I have granted the landlord name suppression. Tenant’s Application
The tenant will not recover the bond and so her application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4576068 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4576068 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions