What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627312 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case but the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4627312?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4503855 D…: $5,480.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627312?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9304043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627312 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case but the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4627312?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4503855 D…: $5,480.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627312?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9304043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Alva Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627312 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627312 — net $2,160.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Insurance excess for carpets	$3,300.00		Insurance excess for carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 4503855 dated		$5,480.44	Previous order application 4503855 dated
Total award	$3,320.44	$5,480.44
Net award		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,160.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case but the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Margaret Harris must pay [The tenant/s] $2,160.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 29 June 2023 under application 4503855.
The application by Margaret Harris for further compensation of $9,929.88 and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $13,229.88, exemplary damages for harassment, delay in repairing broken glass in a door and failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 11/7/2020 and ended when the tenant vacated on 7/3/2023.
On 29/6/2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for refund of the bond and exemplary damages in favour of the tenant.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

The landlord suggested that a third party, acting on behalf of the tenant, harassed her about the increase in rent.
Further the landlord was unhappy about the length of time taken for the tenant to replace smoke alarms, repair glass in a door and not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord wanted $3,000.00 exemplary damages.
In response, the tenant submitted that a social services agency had recommended to her the name of a tenancy advocate who had approached the landlord about the rent increase because she found it difficult to communicate herself with the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Section 40 provides, among other matters, that a tenant must keep premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit anyone else to damage premises or interfere with or render inoperative any means of escape from fire.
No exemplary damages are available to the landlord for harassment because the legislation only provides for harassment by a landlord being a breach.
In addition, I find the evidence does not establish that the tenant or her support person harassed the landlord.
Breach of the requirements to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and not damage the premises are not unlawful acts.
However, removal of smoke alarms can, in certain circumstances be an unlawful act.
I am persuaded that is not the case here because the evidence of the tenant was that the alarms were faulty, and the landlord did not dispute that.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $3,300.00 being three insurance excesses for replacement of carpets stained by animal urine b. $2,080.00 being four weeks loss of rent for the period while the floors were sanded prior to the carpet being laid c. $7,849.88 being the difference between the cost of the carpets of $16,796.37 less the insurance pay-out of $8,946.49.
In support of the claim the landlord provided advertising photographs taken in March 2020, a letter from the previous tenant who left in February 2020, quotes for carpet replacement and floor sanding, two written opinions from carpet cleaners about the need for replacement with photographs and two undated property inspection reports.
Further the landlord provided a 14 day notice dated 31/8/2022 relating to removal of smoke alarms, repair of a glass door, urine smells on carpet, rubbish removal, cleaning, smoking and animal waste in the outside area.
The evidence of the landlord was that the carpet was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy and ranged in age from 5 years to around 12 years old.
On the other hand, the tenant suggested that the carpets smelt at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a letter in support from a friend who helped her clean the carpets at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant agreed she replaced faulty smoke alarms, repaired the broken glass in the door, and removed rubbish but that she took some time to do this work.
The tenant disputed that her dog was responsible for animal faeces in the back yard.
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.
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.
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.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the landlord that damage was caused to the carpets from animal urine during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Moreover, I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord who witnessed the dog urinating on the carpet that the damage was intentional.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
An award has been made for the three insurance excesses claimed by the landlord.
The claims for further compensation of $9,929.88 fail.
First because the landlord is not entitled to four weeks loss of rent while the floors are being sanded eight months after the end of the tenancy, because the insurance claim took some time to be processed.
Second when the landlord has insurance, and whether or not there is a claim, the tenant is protected where the amount of cover is limited. It is the fact of insurance, not the extent, which provides protection, Linklater v Dickison and Others [2017] NZHC 2813.
As Margaret Harris has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95(4) because I consider it reasonable to continue with the suppression granted to her in the previous order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627312 — net $2,160.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Insurance excess for carpets	$3,300.00		Insurance excess for carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 4503855 dated		$5,480.44	Previous order application 4503855 dated
Total award	$3,320.44	$5,480.44
Net award		$2,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,160.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case but the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Margaret Harris must pay [The tenant/s] $2,160.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 29 June 2023 under application 4503855.
The application by Margaret Harris for further compensation of $9,929.88 and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $13,229.88, exemplary damages for harassment, delay in repairing broken glass in a door and failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 11/7/2020 and ended when the tenant vacated on 7/3/2023.
On 29/6/2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for refund of the bond and exemplary damages in favour of the tenant.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

The landlord suggested that a third party, acting on behalf of the tenant, harassed her about the increase in rent.
Further the landlord was unhappy about the length of time taken for the tenant to replace smoke alarms, repair glass in a door and not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord wanted $3,000.00 exemplary damages.
In response, the tenant submitted that a social services agency had recommended to her the name of a tenancy advocate who had approached the landlord about the rent increase because she found it difficult to communicate herself with the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Section 40 provides, among other matters, that a tenant must keep premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit anyone else to damage premises or interfere with or render inoperative any means of escape from fire.
No exemplary damages are available to the landlord for harassment because the legislation only provides for harassment by a landlord being a breach.
In addition, I find the evidence does not establish that the tenant or her support person harassed the landlord.
Breach of the requirements to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and not damage the premises are not unlawful acts.
However, removal of smoke alarms can, in certain circumstances be an unlawful act.
I am persuaded that is not the case here because the evidence of the tenant was that the alarms were faulty, and the landlord did not dispute that.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $3,300.00 being three insurance excesses for replacement of carpets stained by animal urine b. $2,080.00 being four weeks loss of rent for the period while the floors were sanded prior to the carpet being laid c. $7,849.88 being the difference between the cost of the carpets of $16,796.37 less the insurance pay-out of $8,946.49.
In support of the claim the landlord provided advertising photographs taken in March 2020, a letter from the previous tenant who left in February 2020, quotes for carpet replacement and floor sanding, two written opinions from carpet cleaners about the need for replacement with photographs and two undated property inspection reports.
Further the landlord provided a 14 day notice dated 31/8/2022 relating to removal of smoke alarms, repair of a glass door, urine smells on carpet, rubbish removal, cleaning, smoking and animal waste in the outside area.
The evidence of the landlord was that the carpet was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy and ranged in age from 5 years to around 12 years old.
On the other hand, the tenant suggested that the carpets smelt at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a letter in support from a friend who helped her clean the carpets at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant agreed she replaced faulty smoke alarms, repaired the broken glass in the door, and removed rubbish but that she took some time to do this work.
The tenant disputed that her dog was responsible for animal faeces in the back yard.
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.
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.
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.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the landlord that damage was caused to the carpets from animal urine during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Moreover, I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord who witnessed the dog urinating on the carpet that the damage was intentional.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
An award has been made for the three insurance excesses claimed by the landlord.
The claims for further compensation of $9,929.88 fail.
First because the landlord is not entitled to four weeks loss of rent while the floors are being sanded eight months after the end of the tenancy, because the insurance claim took some time to be processed.
Second when the landlord has insurance, and whether or not there is a claim, the tenant is protected where the amount of cover is limited. It is the fact of insurance, not the extent, which provides protection, Linklater v Dickison and Others [2017] NZHC 2813.
As Margaret Harris has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95(4) because I consider it reasonable to continue with the suppression granted to her in the previous order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627312 — Property damage at 32 Alva Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627312 — Property damage at 32 Alva Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

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 landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions