What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant] is to pay Staircase Property Management Limited $726.98 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4644889?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $88.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644889?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9824853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant] is to pay Staircase Property Management Limited $726.98 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4644889?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $88.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644889?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9824853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34 Traverse Lane, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644889 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644889 — net $726.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (1 day	$88.57	Rent arrears (1 day
Water rates	$88.41	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet repair	$500.00	Carpet repair
Net award	$726.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.98

Both parties attended the hearing; the tenant by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 30 June 2023. The tenant accepts the claims for an additional day’s rent and for the final water account.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish (s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The landlord claims $125.00 for cleaning and $88.68 for emptying and cleaning the rubbish bins.

The cleaning invoice is for cleaning two showers, “glass semi restoration”, calcium build-up in two sinks and toilets, and ceiling “fly poo”. The landlord provided photos of the showers, sinks and toilets. The tenant provided photo and video evidence of the condition of the house at the end of the tenancy.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

I find that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean. Lime scale or calcium build-up occurs naturally as a result of minerals in the water supply and does not in itself indicate a lack of cleanliness. There is no supporting evidence of excessive fly poo.

The tenant left rubbish in one of the bins. She says a neighbour had agreed to dispose of the rubbish. However, she accepts the landlord’s claim for its removal. The invoice includes the cost of cleaning the bins. They were not excessively dirty, and this aspect of the claim is not proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the cost of fully replacing the carpet, which was about 3½ years old at the end of the tenancy. The initial claim was for $2,000.00, based on 4 x insurance excesses. At the hearing that was amended to $1,625.00. The landlord’s insurer paid out $6,475.00, based on an assessed repair cost of $8,675.00, less excesses of $2,200.00. The landlord provided a repair invoice for the lesser sum of $8,100.00, leaving a shortfall of $1,625.00.

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 (s 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 (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

There were three issues with the carpet: food colouring stains in the living room, a frayed area in the master bedroom, and alleged staining from cat urine.

The tenant says her daughter spilt the food colouring. She had the stain commercially cleaned, but only one of the three colours came out. She does not know how the fraying occurred, but believes it was at a join in the carpet. She says she obtained a quote for $400.00 for patching both areas, which she sent on to the landlord.

The landlord says a decision was made not to patch due to the overarching issue of the cat urine smell, which the tenant disputes. The tenancy agreement permitted 2 cats. One of the cats was replaced with a kitten in about November 2022. The landlord’s claim is based on the evidence of the property manager at the hearing, who said the smell of cat urine was immediately apparent when she went to the property on the Monday after the tenant vacated (the previous Friday). She believes the new kitten may have been responsible, and says she saw patches of white powder on the carpet during an inspection in February 2023. The landlord also provided an email from the carpet layer which says: I wish to advise that the smell coming from the carpet at 34 Traverse Lane Omokoroa was evident as soon as entering the house. The smell of cat urine was apparent right through the house. It is likely that the smell has permeated through the carpet to the underlay as carpet had already been cleaned before my visit.

The tenant provided two emails, one from a friend and one from a neighbour, who helped with the cleaning at the end of the tenancy. They say: The house did not smell of pet urine ... Never did we smell the presence of any pet and their urine.

The supporting evidence from both parties is not entirely independent or disinterested, and in totality has an equally balancing effect. There is no other supporting evidence, such as use of a ‘black light’ to identify the location of any urine stains, or photographs of the underside of the carpet or underlay showing the presence of stains. Conversely, the tenant refers to the complete absence of any prior complaints of a cat urine smell during any of the previous inspections (including two in February and May 2023) or when prospective tenants were shown through the property towards the end of the tenancy.

Considering the evidence as a whole, while it is possible that there was some cat urine in the carpet, the landlord has not proved that the carpet was damaged to the extent that it needed to be replaced. Therefore, compensation will be based on the likely cost of patching the two areas in the lounge and master bedroom.

During the hearing the tenant said she obtained a price of $400.00 to patch the carpet. She did not provide any supporting evidence, and the property manager who appeared said she was not notified of the likely cost. At the end of the hearing, the tenant was given approval to send the Tribunal a copy of a message from the landlord that she read out during the hearing.

In addition to sending in various messages (the additional ones have not been taken into account), in a covering note the tenant said the cost discussed with the carpet repairer was $400.00 to $500.00. While it is not usual to take account of any information received after a hearing, in this case the tenant has voluntarily referred to a potentially higher price than that discussed at the hearing. In the circumstances it is reasonable to base compensation on the higher amount. Filing fee and name suppression

If the landlord had accepted the tenant’s proposal to repair the carpet rather that replace it, it is likely that the claim could have been resolved without proceedings being filed. The other disputed claim, for cleaning, has not been proved. For these reasons, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. The same considerations apply to name suppression under s 95A(4) RTA: the tenant has been substantially successful in defending the disputed claims against her. J P Smith 11 January 2024

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644889 — net $726.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (1 day	$88.57	Rent arrears (1 day
Water rates	$88.41	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet repair	$500.00	Carpet repair
Net award	$726.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.98

Both parties attended the hearing; the tenant by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 30 June 2023. The tenant accepts the claims for an additional day’s rent and for the final water account.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish (s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The landlord claims $125.00 for cleaning and $88.68 for emptying and cleaning the rubbish bins.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

There were three issues with the carpet: food colouring stains in the living room, a frayed area in the master bedroom, and alleged staining from cat urine.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644889 — Property damage at 34 Traverse Lane, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644889 — Property damage at 34 Traverse Lane, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

How much is owed for rent and water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions