What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4582273 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 4582273?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting Boards: $86.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582273?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9282855-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4582273 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 4582273?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting Boards: $86.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582273?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9282855-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 6, 24 Mansfield Avenue, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4582273 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582273 — net $636.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Damage	$2,000.00	Carpet Damage
Cleaning	$109.25	Cleaning
Skirting boards	$86.65	Skirting boards
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$636.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$636.34

The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.

[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as Agent for Patrick Feeney $636.34 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 (3595069-014) to Holmwood Real Estate Limited as Agent for Patrick Feeney immediately.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown and Ms Shaw represented the landlord. The tenant attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation, including for carpet they say was damaged by cat urine, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged unlawful act of demanding payment of an amount from the tenant that exceeds the tenant’s liability under s49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Background

This tenancy was from August 2021 to May 2023. It was renewed in February 2022.

The premises are a two-bedroom unit which the tenant shared with her two cats. She worked from home, and she said she seldom left the cats on their own.

The landlord carried out regular inspections of the premises and there is no specific record of any concern regarding the cats. Towards the end of the tenancy the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant requiring her to better ventilate the premises. The landlord said that there was some concern about odour in the premises which the inspectors believed was coming from the cats’ litter trays.

The tenant said that her cats were adult cats that never went outside. They used the letter trays to toilet, and she did not ever see them urinate on the carpet.

There is no dispute that the carpet in the premises was stained during the tenancy and the tenant accepted that it needed to be replaced after the tenancy ended. She gave explanations for the staining other than cat urine.

There was some uncertainty about the age of the carpet. It is agreed that it was replaced shortly before the tenancy, but the tenant said that second hand carpet was used. There is some support for that in the ingoing report.

There is an issue as to whether the damage to the carpet was intentional or careless and as to whether there was insurance cover for the damage. Law

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.

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.

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.

A landlord cannot demand or accept payment of an amount that exceeds the tenant's liability (as set out above). Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Claims Carpet

The evidence satisfied me that the carpet was contaminated by cat urine during the tenancy. I did not find the tenant’s explanations for the staining to be convincing. Given the pattern and the extent of staining, both on and under the carpet, and the evidence as to odour, the most likely explanation is that there were numerous incidents of a cat or cats soiling the carpet throughout the premises.

This is not a case where animals were shut up inside premises for long periods and carpet soiling was inevitable. I accept that the tenant was in the premises most of the time. But given my finding that there was extensive soiling, I find that the tenant must have been aware of it and, evidently, she did not take action to prevent it. I find therefore that the damage was intentional in the sense that the tenant could have prevented it but failed to do so.

The cost of replacing the carpet was $2,922. There was some discussion about the age of the carpet. The landlord’s evidence regarding that was not entirely satisfactory. The fact that there was some staining to the carpet recorded in the ingoing report and from the photographs lead me to find that it was not new carpet at the start of the tenancy.

I must therefore consider betterment. Doing the best I can based on the photographs, and being as fair as possible to the tenant, I find that there should a reduction of 1/3 for betterment and so I have awarded $2,000 for the carpet damage. Cleaning

Clearly the oven needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. It does not look like it was cleaned at all.

The evidence did not prove that the premises were otherwise not left reasonably clean. I have therefore awarded the cost of the oven cleaning only. Skirting Boards

I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not use the linen cupboard and therefore she should not be liable for painting the skirting board in there. I am satisfied that the other skirting board damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.

I have therefore awarded $86.65 for the damage. Filing Fee

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. The Tenant’s Application

Given my finding that the carpet damage was intentional damage, the tenant’s application must be dismissed. I would not have been inclined to find an unlawful act in any case. In my view a landlord is entitled to claim intentional damage if there is some evidence to support that. A finding against the landlord on the issue is not a finding that the landlord has made a claim that they knew they were not entitled to make. Suppression

Because the tenant has been largely unsuccessful, there is no reason to order suppression of her name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582273 — net $636.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Damage	$2,000.00	Carpet Damage
Cleaning	$109.25	Cleaning
Skirting boards	$86.65	Skirting boards
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$636.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$636.34