What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608729 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $351.04 from the bond, for carpet

How much money was awarded in case 4608729?

The reconciled net award was $351.04.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608729?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608729 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $351.04 from the bond, for carpet

How much money was awarded in case 4608729?

The reconciled net award was $351.04.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608729?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608729 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608729 — net $351.04 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$351.04

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608729 — net $351.04 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$351.04

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $351.04 from the bond, for carpet cleaning.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $351.04 [The tenant/s]: $4,648.96
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Initially the tenants applied for their bond to be returned following the end of the tenancy in February 2023. The landlord then cross applied for compensation for damage to the carpet and for dirty curtains. It is unfortunate that there have been a number of delays which has meant that the applications have only been heard now.
There were many claims included in the original application however the landlord withdrew all but those discussed in this decision at the hearing.
I consider the claims separately below, however it is useful if I outline the requirements for proof. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants (the landlord here) are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. This means they cannot just allege something; they must adduce evidence to persuade me that their version of events is the correct one.

Were the curtains left reasonably clean and tidy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord alleges here that the tenants did not leave the curtains in three bedrooms reasonably clean and as such seeks the cost of having them drycleaned.
The tenants say they spot cleaned the curtains and they feel they left them as clean as they could have. They accept that the landlord told them to machine wash them, but they did not want to for fear they would be damaged.
The landlord has provided an invoice for the drycleaning however no photos of the curtains, either before or after the tenancy, and the invoice does not describe the items cleaned. On the evidence I have available to me, I do not find the evidential standard met, and accordingly must dismiss the claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for carpet stains left in three bedrooms and the lounge. They had the carpets steam cleaned, spot cleaned and then chemically treated, however some stains remain which they say have affected the amount they can rent the property out for. It was not economical to claim insurance for the stains and the cost for replacement of the carpet was high.
The stains are as follows: i. In the lounge/conservatory area three stains; one a relatively large stain that [carpet cleaning company] has classified as a liquid stain, and several other smaller stains. [Carpet cleaning company] specifically stated: possible coffee or tea stain of unknown age - definitely improved visually, stain has lightened. After [carpet cleaning company] spot cleaned the stains, they say there was a 31% improvement. ii. In [Tenant 1]’s bedroom there were 3 or 4 square stains which appear to have come from her bed legs. [Carpet cleaning company] assessed that the stain had improved by 40% as a result of their cleaning, specifically saying: Rust and wooden varnish stains - Lightened, but still visible. iii. In [Tenant 2]’s room there is an area of what appears to be rust which was under the bed. [Carpet cleaning company]’s cleaning has not improved this stain and their comments were: Applied rust remover chemical however no change - Not restorable via chemical treatment. iv. In [Tenant 3]’s bedroom there is some small spotting that spans the area of approximately a foot. [Carpet cleaning company] cleaning could also not improve this stain and said: Possible makeup related stain and few splatters of possibly coffee - Slightly lightened, but overall, not successful.
The tenants submit that the stains are fair wear and tear and accordingly dispute liability for them. In particular they note as follows: i. They did not notice the stains in the lounge/conservatory area despite cleaning intensively which they say is an indication of how minor they are. They do not know how they occurred. ii. The marks in [Tenant 1]’s bedroom they attributed to indentations from the bed legs only, they did not realise they were stains. They submit that they could only have occurred from the wooden bed legs being damp in the room. [Tenant 1] says her room was particularly damp which is why she purchased a dehumidifier during the tenancy. She says she worked hard to mitigate the damp during the tenancy, an issue they raised with their landlords, and it was an ongoing job. iii. [Tenant 2] says she noticed the stain in her room when she moved her bed. She says it looked like rust, but she was not sure how it occurred given her bed is wooden. She says it spread out when she tried to clean it. iv. The tenants did not notice any stains in [Tenant 3]’s bedroom when they vacated.
Both parties have differing views as to whether the property is damp. There is agreement that it does align with the Healthy Homes Standards and an HRV system was installed approximately halfway through the tenancy. The law on damage
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. Here the landlord’s excess is $1400, and the weekly rent is $1250.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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. Discussion
This carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy which lasted a year. Carpet is expected, according to current depreciation guidelines, to have a lifespan of approximately 10 years in a rental property in New Zealand.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred by [Carpet cleaning company]’s cleaning in the treatment of the stains. They also sought the cost of replacing the carpet however as they have not incurred this cost, choosing instead to retain the carpet, I advised them at the hearing that I would not consider that quantum but was prepared to consider a claim for accelerated depreciation, an amount they have previously sought. Accelerated depreciation is the concept that an item has aged more quickly than reasonably anticipated, however is still fit for purpose.
With respect to the steam clean of the full property, there is no evidence that this was necessary as a result of the tenants leaving the carpet unclean (other than the stains which I address below). This tenancy was only a year long and they had no pets. Specifically, I do not find this claim substantiated in accordance with the RTA statutory standard that tenants must leave a rental property. 1 Or, put another way, I do not find it established in evidence that the carpets (other than the stains) were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided photos of the carpet needing a vacuum but that does not equate to requiring a steam clean. Accordingly, I dismiss this part of the claim.
I accept the evidence of the stains in the lounge and bedrooms (other than [Tenant 1]’s room which I discuss below) and find those cleaning costs justified. These stains did occur during the tenancy and appear on the evidence to exceed fair wear and tear given their nature. Specifically, I take into account that the stains in [Tenant 2]’s bedroom were exacerbated by the method of cleaning and that prior to the cleaning the stains were all readily visible.
I further do not find it established that the property was inherently damp (damper than could be expected in such a home) after the HRV system was installed which could have contributed to the stains. I appreciate the tenants’ arguments that stains are a natural result of fair wear and tear on a property however find that the extent of these, over the period of year, exceeds usual wear.
With respect to [Tenant 1]’s room, I am satisfied that it is the normal use of a room to have a bed placed on the carpet without a barrier. The bed was only there for a year, was relatively new and had never caused any seepage and associated leaking prior nor since. Accordingly, nothing [Tenant 1] did was careless in the causation of these stains. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as carpets are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor marks and wearing as a carpet is used. That is an incident of people living in the premises in the normal way, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives. Accordingly, I find the stains in [Tenant 1]’s room fair wear and tear.
Therefore, I find the tenants liable for the cleaning costs for these areas as discussed which amount to $351.04, an amount I find reasonable in the circumstances.
I then turn to the accelerated depreciation claim. I accept the evidence that some stains are still present in the home. However, I do not find it established that the property is no longer able to be rented for a market rent because of the 1 Section 40 RTA: reasonably clean and tidy damage. Photos were not provided of the stains as they currently are, although time was provided post hearing from the provision of these. Further, they were relatively minor in the first instance.
Section 85 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome.
After considering all of the above, I decline to make an award of compensation for accelerated depreciation. The carpets still have the expected life in them and only have light marks to them. The evidence does not substantiate that the marks are such that they may deter prospective tenants or require a lower rental. A landlord cannot expect that a carpet will retain its new state when it is in a residential tenancy. The standards for tenants set in the RTA are less than an owner may apply to their own home. This is primarily to reflect that running a tenancy is a commercial enterprise and the rent received is considered sufficient to account for small damages akin to wear and tear.
Accordingly, the claim for accelerated depreciation is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. Both parties seek suppression and as both have been successful to an extent in their positions, I approve both applications for suppression. I do note that this is a situation of diligent tenants and a diligent, and thorough landlord. No one has acted maliciously; it is an unfortunate situation for all concerned.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608729 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608729 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the curtains left reasonably clean and tidy?

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

Were the curtains left reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions