What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4665269?

Compensation: (hole in dining room w…: $126.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665269?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9775190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4665269?

Compensation: (hole in dining room w…: $126.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665269?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9775190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4665269 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665269 — net $411.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (vinyl in bathroom	$517.50		Repairs: (vinyl in bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (hole in dining room wall reimbursement		$126.50	(hole in dining room wall reimbursement
Total award	$537.94	$126.50
Net award	$411.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$411.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Daniel Zajac and Daniel Kell must pay the landlord $411.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for damages/compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Should the landlord’s application for suppression be granted?
Section 95A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 states that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants claimed that it was in the public interest for the landlord’s name and identifying details to be published and that the landlord had not been substantially successful in its claims as many of its claims had not been successful.
After considering the landlord’s application for suppression and its reiteration of the application during the hearing, I consider that this decision and orders fall into a category of decisions that are of limited public value and do consider that it is contrary to the interests of justice to grant the application. Therefore, I grant the landlord’s name suppression application.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
After due consideration of the evidence provided, I find that the tenants left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I accept that there may have been some minor cleaning required to get the premises back to a condition where it could be relet, such as cleaning the conditioner compartment of the washing machine, wiping some of the walls and windowsills and cleaning some exterior windows. However, the photographic evidence provided showed that these issues were minor and only required a quick wipe. The tenants are not required to leave the premises spotless at the end of a three-and-a-half-year tenancy.
It was noted during the hearing that the front mat that was claimed as one of the items requiring significant removal of dog hair belonged to the tenants and was an item they left behind inadvertently and are prepared to collect and dispose of should the landlord require that. They also noted they had left their vacuum cleaner behind and are equally amenable to removing that if the landlord requires.
The two lounge suites appeared from the photographic evidence to have been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with no new stains and free from dog hair. The tenants confirmed they had vacuumed the furniture thoroughly to ensure all dog hair was removed and that there were no new stains on the furniture from their use of it. The claim for commercial cleaning of the lounge suites were not proven and not awarded.
The amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning the windowsills, interior windows, dust on the skirting boards in the hallway and hair on the front mat have not been proved and were not awarded.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The carpet was not in good condition at the start of the tenancy and had not been commercially cleaned and all stains removed before this tenancy commenced. The two stains in the lounge that the tenants accepted were not there at the start of the tenancy appear to be from fair wear and tear over a three-and-a-half-year period and not have been because of careless or intentional acts by the tenants. The stains have not been able to be removed, much like several other stains from prior tenancies. I am not satisfied that these stains were more than fair wear and tear to aging carpet. The amount claimed has not been proven to be more than fair wear and tear and the claim has been wholly unsuccessful.
I heard considerable amounts of evidence about the dog related damage to the deck. The tenants claim that the owner of the property, who lived above the tenancy premises, used to encourage the dog to run excitedly out on the deck to receive treats that she dropped down on the deck for the dog. The tenants claim that but for the owner doing this the dog would not have scratched at the deck to get the treats that fell between the floorboards and would not have skidded in the doorway to get out to the deck to receive any potential treats when the dog heard the owner out on her deck above. I accept that the damage was at least in large part attributable to the owner encouraging the dog to scratch and skid in the areas where the damage has occurred to get at treats dropped down to it from the deck above. One of the tenants works from home and states the door is never shut outside of the premises and that the dog is never restrained in the damaged areas. The amount claimed has not been proven to be because of a careless or intentional act by the tenants and the claim has been wholly unsuccessful.
The landlord had received a reimbursement of $126.50 from the bond centre for a hole in the dining room wall that the owners originally claimed was damage caused by the tenants. The tenants have proven that the hole was there in the pre-tenancy report photographs and could not have been done by the tenants. The property manager had reviewed the pre-tenancy inspection report and agreed that the tenants were not responsible for this damage. Therefore, this claim was dropped by the landlord and the amount withheld from the bond has been used to offset the other damages awarded to the landlord.
Damage was caused during the tenancy to the vinyl in the bathroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage and accepted their dog did that damage. The tenants claimed that the vinyl could have been repaired at a lesser rate and that they were denied the opportunity to see if it could be patched. The landlord claimed that she had got a tradesman she trusted to undertake the work, for the vinyl to protect the floorboards underneath from water damage it needed to be fully replaced and not patched and the labour costs and call out costs were less due to one tradesman doing all the repairs and maintenance at one time. I accept that the vinyl needed to be replaced for the floor to be waterproof and that the landlord has the right to chose who undertakes the repair work so long as the rate being charged is reasonable. I accept the rate was reasonable and the amounts ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665269 — net $411.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (vinyl in bathroom	$517.50		Repairs: (vinyl in bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (hole in dining room wall reimbursement		$126.50	(hole in dining room wall reimbursement
Total award	$537.94	$126.50
Net award	$411.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$411.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Daniel Zajac and Daniel Kell must pay the landlord $411.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for damages/compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Should the landlord’s application for suppression be granted?
Section 95A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 states that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants claimed that it was in the public interest for the landlord’s name and identifying details to be published and that the landlord had not been substantially successful in its claims as many of its claims had not been successful.
After considering the landlord’s application for suppression and its reiteration of the application during the hearing, I consider that this decision and orders fall into a category of decisions that are of limited public value and do consider that it is contrary to the interests of justice to grant the application. Therefore, I grant the landlord’s name suppression application.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
After due consideration of the evidence provided, I find that the tenants left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I accept that there may have been some minor cleaning required to get the premises back to a condition where it could be relet, such as cleaning the conditioner compartment of the washing machine, wiping some of the walls and windowsills and cleaning some exterior windows. However, the photographic evidence provided showed that these issues were minor and only required a quick wipe. The tenants are not required to leave the premises spotless at the end of a three-and-a-half-year tenancy.
It was noted during the hearing that the front mat that was claimed as one of the items requiring significant removal of dog hair belonged to the tenants and was an item they left behind inadvertently and are prepared to collect and dispose of should the landlord require that. They also noted they had left their vacuum cleaner behind and are equally amenable to removing that if the landlord requires.
The two lounge suites appeared from the photographic evidence to have been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with no new stains and free from dog hair. The tenants confirmed they had vacuumed the furniture thoroughly to ensure all dog hair was removed and that there were no new stains on the furniture from their use of it. The claim for commercial cleaning of the lounge suites were not proven and not awarded.
The amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning the windowsills, interior windows, dust on the skirting boards in the hallway and hair on the front mat have not been proved and were not awarded.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The carpet was not in good condition at the start of the tenancy and had not been commercially cleaned and all stains removed before this tenancy commenced. The two stains in the lounge that the tenants accepted were not there at the start of the tenancy appear to be from fair wear and tear over a three-and-a-half-year period and not have been because of careless or intentional acts by the tenants. The stains have not been able to be removed, much like several other stains from prior tenancies. I am not satisfied that these stains were more than fair wear and tear to aging carpet. The amount claimed has not been proven to be more than fair wear and tear and the claim has been wholly unsuccessful.
I heard considerable amounts of evidence about the dog related damage to the deck. The tenants claim that the owner of the property, who lived above the tenancy premises, used to encourage the dog to run excitedly out on the deck to receive treats that she dropped down on the deck for the dog. The tenants claim that but for the owner doing this the dog would not have scratched at the deck to get the treats that fell between the floorboards and would not have skidded in the doorway to get out to the deck to receive any potential treats when the dog heard the owner out on her deck above. I accept that the damage was at least in large part attributable to the owner encouraging the dog to scratch and skid in the areas where the damage has occurred to get at treats dropped down to it from the deck above. One of the tenants works from home and states the door is never shut outside of the premises and that the dog is never restrained in the damaged areas. The amount claimed has not been proven to be because of a careless or intentional act by the tenants and the claim has been wholly unsuccessful.
The landlord had received a reimbursement of $126.50 from the bond centre for a hole in the dining room wall that the owners originally claimed was damage caused by the tenants. The tenants have proven that the hole was there in the pre-tenancy report photographs and could not have been done by the tenants. The property manager had reviewed the pre-tenancy inspection report and agreed that the tenants were not responsible for this damage. Therefore, this claim was dropped by the landlord and the amount withheld from the bond has been used to offset the other damages awarded to the landlord.
Damage was caused during the tenancy to the vinyl in the bathroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage and accepted their dog did that damage. The tenants claimed that the vinyl could have been repaired at a lesser rate and that they were denied the opportunity to see if it could be patched. The landlord claimed that she had got a tradesman she trusted to undertake the work, for the vinyl to protect the floorboards underneath from water damage it needed to be fully replaced and not patched and the labour costs and call out costs were less due to one tradesman doing all the repairs and maintenance at one time. I accept that the vinyl needed to be replaced for the floor to be waterproof and that the landlord has the right to chose who undertakes the repair work so long as the rate being charged is reasonable. I accept the rate was reasonable and the amounts ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665269 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665269 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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