What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672149?

The tribunal order states: Caitlin Leroy and Teparekura Linda Witika must pay Kevin Deane Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4672149?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $822.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $2,458.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven / Stove: $627.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672149?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9614701-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672149?

The tribunal order states: Caitlin Leroy and Teparekura Linda Witika must pay Kevin Deane Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4672149?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $822.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $2,458.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven / Stove: $627.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672149?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9614701-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Studholme Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672149 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672149 — net $4,428.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 August 2023	$822.86	Rent arrears to 01 August 2023
Replace oven / stove	$627.62	Replace oven / stove
Replace carpet	$2,458.00	Replace carpet
Repairs Vinyl flooring	$500.00	Repairs Vinyl flooring
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$4,428.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,428.92

Order

Caitlin Leroy and Teparekura Linda Witika must pay Kevin Deane Real Estate Limited T/A: Harcourts Morrinsville as Agent for Ricardo and Yanina Kant $4, 428.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Morton and Ms Kewish appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 08 July 2022. The tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 01 August 2023. On 12 September 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. I am advised by the landlord that the tenant has already agreed to the release of the bond, and with the tenant’s agreement, the bond has been attributed to other costs, including cleaning and rubbish removal.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 01 August 2023. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The claimed amount is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the carpet throughout the property, the vinyl flooring in the kitchen / dining room, and the stove / oven. The landlord is claiming $6,145.00 to replace the carpet, $2,795.60 to replace the vinyl flooring, and $1,255.23 to replace the stove / oven.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their useful lifespan. Carpet
The landlord has produced photographs of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show the carpet extensively soiled and stained throughout the lounge, hallway, and the three bedrooms. The landlord has also produced the photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy and a pre tenancy checklist. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was more likely than not intentional. Based on the nature and extent of the staining, the tenant has clearly allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage to the carpet was occurring. The quote to replace the carpet is $6,145.00.
Dealing with betterment and depreciation, the property was built in the 1970’s and appears to retain many of its original features. The carpet is not original. However, the landlord is unable to tell me its exact age. Mr Morton believes that the carpet was between 5 to 6 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The useful lifespan of carpet in rental properties is between 10 and 12 years. Apart from a rough carpet patch in the hallway, the pre tenancy photographs show the carpet to be in a reasonable condition. The carpet is halfway through its useful life span, had an area of pre-existing damage, but was otherwise in reasonable condition. I deduct 60% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $2,458.00. Stove / oven
The pre tenancy inspection report and photographs show that the stove/oven was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced a photograph of the stove / oven taken at the end of the tenancy, claiming the door has been damaged. The landlord attempted to have the stove / oven repaired. The contractors invoice states that the stove / oven could not be repaired due to stretched hinges and buckled frame. The landlord states that the force required to cause this damage would have been significant and likely the result of an act certain to cause damage. I accept that submission. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Dealing with betterment and depreciation, Mr Morton believed that the stove / oven was around 5 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The useful life span of stove/ovens in residential properties is between 10 and 12 years. I deduct 50% for betterment and depreciation award the landlord $ 627.62. Vinyl flooring
The landlord has produced photographs of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen / dining room taken at the end of the tenancy, showing that two triangle shapes have been cut out. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is clearly intentional. The landlord is claiming $2,795.60 to replace the flooring. The vinyl flooring appears to be original. The landlord does not dispute this fact. The useful life span of vinyl flooring in rental properties is between 10 and 12 years. Although it appears to have been in reasonable condition the vinyl flooring was well past its useful life. I award the landlord damages of $500.00. Costs.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although they have been substantially successful the landlord does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672149 — net $4,428.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 August 2023	$822.86	Rent arrears to 01 August 2023
Replace oven / stove	$627.62	Replace oven / stove
Replace carpet	$2,458.00	Replace carpet
Repairs Vinyl flooring	$500.00	Repairs Vinyl flooring
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$4,428.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,428.92

Order

Caitlin Leroy and Teparekura Linda Witika must pay Kevin Deane Real Estate Limited T/A: Harcourts Morrinsville as Agent for Ricardo and Yanina Kant $4, 428.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Morton and Ms Kewish appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 08 July 2022. The tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 01 August 2023. On 12 September 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. I am advised by the landlord that the tenant has already agreed to the release of the bond, and with the tenant’s agreement, the bond has been attributed to other costs, including cleaning and rubbish removal.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 01 August 2023. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The claimed amount is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the carpet throughout the property, the vinyl flooring in the kitchen / dining room, and the stove / oven. The landlord is claiming $6,145.00 to replace the carpet, $2,795.60 to replace the vinyl flooring, and $1,255.23 to replace the stove / oven.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their useful lifespan. Carpet
The landlord has produced photographs of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show the carpet extensively soiled and stained throughout the lounge, hallway, and the three bedrooms. The landlord has also produced the photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy and a pre tenancy checklist. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was more likely than not intentional. Based on the nature and extent of the staining, the tenant has clearly allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage to the carpet was occurring. The quote to replace the carpet is $6,145.00.
Dealing with betterment and depreciation, the property was built in the 1970’s and appears to retain many of its original features. The carpet is not original. However, the landlord is unable to tell me its exact age. Mr Morton believes that the carpet was between 5 to 6 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The useful lifespan of carpet in rental properties is between 10 and 12 years. Apart from a rough carpet patch in the hallway, the pre tenancy photographs show the carpet to be in a reasonable condition. The carpet is halfway through its useful life span, had an area of pre-existing damage, but was otherwise in reasonable condition. I deduct 60% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $2,458.00. Stove / oven
The pre tenancy inspection report and photographs show that the stove/oven was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced a photograph of the stove / oven taken at the end of the tenancy, claiming the door has been damaged. The landlord attempted to have the stove / oven repaired. The contractors invoice states that the stove / oven could not be repaired due to stretched hinges and buckled frame. The landlord states that the force required to cause this damage would have been significant and likely the result of an act certain to cause damage. I accept that submission. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Dealing with betterment and depreciation, Mr Morton believed that the stove / oven was around 5 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The useful life span of stove/ovens in residential properties is between 10 and 12 years. I deduct 50% for betterment and depreciation award the landlord $ 627.62. Vinyl flooring
The landlord has produced photographs of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen / dining room taken at the end of the tenancy, showing that two triangle shapes have been cut out. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is clearly intentional. The landlord is claiming $2,795.60 to replace the flooring. The vinyl flooring appears to be original. The landlord does not dispute this fact. The useful life span of vinyl flooring in rental properties is between 10 and 12 years. Although it appears to have been in reasonable condition the vinyl flooring was well past its useful life. I award the landlord damages of $500.00. Costs.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although they have been substantially successful the landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672149 — Rent arrears at 9 Studholme Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672149 — Rent arrears at 9 Studholme Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions