How much money was awarded in case 4600834?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600834?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9220097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4600834?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600834?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9220097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 21 Stoneyhurst Street, St Albans, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600834 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600834?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600834 — net $1,275.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning – Upstairs	$255.00	Carpet Cleaning – Upstairs
Repairs: Insurance Excess Carpet – Downstairs	$1,000.00	Repairs: Insurance Excess Carpet – Downstairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,275.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,275.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Samuel Mutu Martin to pay Peter Myles Walters $1,275.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond balance of $2,082.46 (3371836-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Peter Myles Walters: $1,275.44 Samuel Mutu Martin: $807.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Both parties had submitted applications at the end of the tenancy. A number of issues were resolved before the hearing. There has been a partial release of the bond.

The only issues before me related to carpet damage at the property.

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.

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.

Carpet was damaged by dogs during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and the tenants acknowledged that dogs had urinated on the carpet. The damage was extensive. The staining in the upstairs area could be treated to an acceptable level and the landlord provided a receipt for $255 for that work. I award $255 for stain treatment.

The carpet downstairs had to be replaced as the dogs’ toileting had soaked through to the underlay. Stain removal or treatment was not suitable for this level of damage.

Carpet has been replaced downstairs at a cost of $3,270. The landlord has claimed the insurance excess of $1,000.

The tenants did not dispute the damage or that it was caused by their dogs. However, they said that they should not have to pay the whole insurance excess as the carpet was old and damaged at the start of the tenancy.

Both parties provided photographs and evidence of the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The age of the carpet was unknown, but at least 6 years old as the landlord’s purchased the property in 2016. The carpet was in reasonable condition but showing normal signs of wear and tear.

It is appropriate to consider depreciation when carpet is replaced. That assessment is made against the replacement cost of the carpet, not the insurance excess. Taking account of the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan, I would have depreciated the replacement cost of the carpet by approximately half to two thirds. That calculation would have resulted in an award for carpet replacement of $1,090.00 to $1,635.00. That is more than the limit of tenant’s liability under 49B(3)(a) RTA which is the insurance excess.

I award $1,000 to the landlord for carpet replacement.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600834 — net $1,275.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning – Upstairs	$255.00	Carpet Cleaning – Upstairs
Repairs: Insurance Excess Carpet – Downstairs	$1,000.00	Repairs: Insurance Excess Carpet – Downstairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,275.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,275.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Samuel Mutu Martin to pay Peter Myles Walters $1,275.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond balance of $2,082.46 (3371836-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Peter Myles Walters: $1,275.44 Samuel Mutu Martin: $807.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Both parties had submitted applications at the end of the tenancy. A number of issues were resolved before the hearing. There has been a partial release of the bond.

The only issues before me related to carpet damage at the property.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The carpet downstairs had to be replaced as the dogs’ toileting had soaked through to the underlay. Stain removal or treatment was not suitable for this level of damage.

Carpet has been replaced downstairs at a cost of $3,270. The landlord has claimed the insurance excess of $1,000.

I award $1,000 to the landlord for carpet replacement.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600834 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 21 Stoneyhurst Street, St Albans, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600834 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 21 Stoneyhurst Street, St Albans, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions