What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4681489 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 4681489?

Cleaning: $343.16 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,594.86 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681489?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9658494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4681489 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 4681489?

Cleaning: $343.16 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,594.86 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681489?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9658494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Ngatiti Place, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4681489 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681489 — net $2,510.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$343.16		11. The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel.
Cleaning	$201.20		11. The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel.
Compensation: Carpet replacement	$2,594.86		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$649.19	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,159.66	$649.19
Net award	$2,510.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,510.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 7 November 2019 and ended on 6 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks replacement of lightbulbs, cleaning, carpet cleaning, carpet replacement, and exemplary damages.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 November 2023. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. Mr Tobin represented himself and Ms Wealleans, who was unable to attend. Lightbulbs
The claim seeks the cost of replacing multiple blown lightbulbs.
Tenants are liable for damage that is caused carelessly intentionally by themselves or by someone who is at the premises with their consent 1 . Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear 2 .
A lightbulb ‘blowing’ through ordinary use is not careless or intentional damage.
Tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing blown lightbulbs. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 3 .
[The landlord’s representative 1] provided a copy of the final inspection report including numerous photographs.
The photographs support [The landlord’s representative 1]’s submission that a small amount of extra cleaning was necessary to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel. The amount claimed is fair and reasonable. Carpet cleaning and replacement
The final inspection photographs show numerous stains on the carpet throughout the house.
The landlord arranged for carpet cleaning, but the cleaning did not remove the stains.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the carpet was heavily stained with dog urine.
The landlord replaced the carpet, at a cost of $4,717.93.
The tenants were permitted one dog during the tenancy. 1 Section 49B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 49A(2) RTA 3 Section
The tenants operated a day boarding kennel from the premises. The landlord issued breach notices to the tenants about this during the tenancy.
Mr Tobin submitted that the operation was kept outside, and none of the boarding dogs went inside the house.
Mr Tobin acknowledged that the carpet appeared to be in generally good condition at the start of the tenancy. He acknowledged that his dog may have had one or two ‘accidents’ during the tenancy, but nowhere near the extent of damage that the landlord is claiming.
The landlord’s photographs of the top and underside of the carpet establish that the carpet was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative 1] provided two photographs of the carpet in the lounge taken from around the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs show that the carpet in the lounge was in very good condition.
I was not provided with an entry inspection report, or a property inspection report attached to the back of the tenancy agreement.
The evidence available to me shows that: a. The carpet was relatively new at the beginning of the tenancy. There were no visible stains in the lounge. I do not have direct evidence of the condition of the carpet in the rest of the house. Mr Tobin suggested that there may have been ‘one or two’ existing stains. b. The carpet was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s allegation that they are dog urine stains was not disputed by the tenant. There is no carpet report, or commentary on the carpet cleaning invoices, confirming that they are dog urine stains. c. The carpet cleaning did not remove the stains. d. The stains went all the way through the carpet to the underlay.
Therefore: a. The carpet was damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy. b. The damage cannot be ‘repaired’ and the extent of damage is such that replacement of the carpet is justified.
The claim is based on the cost of new replacement carpet.
My finding is that the tenants are liable for the damage to the carpet, but depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost.
[The landlord’s representative] did not know the exact age of the carpet but submitted that it was relatively new when this tenancy began. They speculated that it may have been installed sometime around 2016-18.
This is consistent with the two photographs showing the condition of the lounge carpet at the start of the tenancy, but of course this is very limited evidence.
Having regard to the limited evidence provided by the landlord about the age and condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, it is appropriate to take a cautious approach.
I will apply depreciation on the carpet based on an estimated age of approximately 7 years at the end of the tenancy. An ‘average’ life expectancy for carpet is 15 years. This figure can vary significantly depending on the quality of the carpet and a range of other factors, but I was not provided with any specific information about the carpet that would cause me to adjust that ‘average’ life expectancy.
Therefore I will apply depreciation of 45% to the new replacement cost claimed. Fraudulent bond release
The claim seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the tenants allegedly completed, signed, and submitted a bond release form and thereby fraudulently received $1,690.81 from the bond.
Mr Tobin denied the allegation, but he could not provide an explanation as to how the Bond Centre came to receive a signed bond form in a different format and with different information than the draft that [The landlord’s representative 1] sent to himself and Ms Wealleans at the end of the tenancy.
In any event, my finding is that even if the landlord’s claim it would not provide the basis of a claim for exemplary damages.
The Tribunal may only award exemplary damages in respect of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that the Act states are “unlawful acts” 4 .
The RTA sets out the maximum amount of exemplary damages that the Tribunal can award in respect of those specific breaches 5 .
The tenants’ alleged actions cannot be linked to any of those breaches that are declared to be unlawful acts. Filing fee, name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application. The landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee for this application 6 .
Name suppression is granted to the landlord 7 . 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Schedule 1A, RTA 6 Section 104(2)(a) RTA
The landlord has received $649.19 from the bond. The balance owed by the tenants is $2,510.47.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681489 — net $2,510.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$343.16		11. The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel.
Cleaning	$201.20		11. The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel.
Compensation: Carpet replacement	$2,594.86		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond released to landlord		$649.19	Bond released to landlord
Total award	$3,159.66	$649.19
Net award	$2,510.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,510.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 7 November 2019 and ended on 6 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks replacement of lightbulbs, cleaning, carpet cleaning, carpet replacement, and exemplary damages.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 November 2023. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. Mr Tobin represented himself and Ms Wealleans, who was unable to attend. Lightbulbs
The claim seeks the cost of replacing multiple blown lightbulbs.
Tenants are liable for damage that is caused carelessly intentionally by themselves or by someone who is at the premises with their consent 1 . Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear 2 .
A lightbulb ‘blowing’ through ordinary use is not careless or intentional damage.
Tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing blown lightbulbs. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 3 .
[The landlord’s representative 1] provided a copy of the final inspection report including numerous photographs.
The photographs support [The landlord’s representative 1]’s submission that a small amount of extra cleaning was necessary to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The invoice is for three hours of cleaning plus travel. The amount claimed is fair and reasonable. Carpet cleaning and replacement
The final inspection photographs show numerous stains on the carpet throughout the house.
The landlord arranged for carpet cleaning, but the cleaning did not remove the stains.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the carpet was heavily stained with dog urine.
The landlord replaced the carpet, at a cost of $4,717.93.
The tenants were permitted one dog during the tenancy. 1 Section 49B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 49A(2) RTA 3 Section
The tenants operated a day boarding kennel from the premises. The landlord issued breach notices to the tenants about this during the tenancy.
Mr Tobin submitted that the operation was kept outside, and none of the boarding dogs went inside the house.
Mr Tobin acknowledged that the carpet appeared to be in generally good condition at the start of the tenancy. He acknowledged that his dog may have had one or two ‘accidents’ during the tenancy, but nowhere near the extent of damage that the landlord is claiming.
The landlord’s photographs of the top and underside of the carpet establish that the carpet was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative 1] provided two photographs of the carpet in the lounge taken from around the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs show that the carpet in the lounge was in very good condition.
I was not provided with an entry inspection report, or a property inspection report attached to the back of the tenancy agreement.
The evidence available to me shows that: a. The carpet was relatively new at the beginning of the tenancy. There were no visible stains in the lounge. I do not have direct evidence of the condition of the carpet in the rest of the house. Mr Tobin suggested that there may have been ‘one or two’ existing stains. b. The carpet was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s allegation that they are dog urine stains was not disputed by the tenant. There is no carpet report, or commentary on the carpet cleaning invoices, confirming that they are dog urine stains. c. The carpet cleaning did not remove the stains. d. The stains went all the way through the carpet to the underlay.
Therefore: a. The carpet was damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy. b. The damage cannot be ‘repaired’ and the extent of damage is such that replacement of the carpet is justified.
The claim is based on the cost of new replacement carpet.
My finding is that the tenants are liable for the damage to the carpet, but depreciation must apply to the new replacement cost.
[The landlord’s representative] did not know the exact age of the carpet but submitted that it was relatively new when this tenancy began. They speculated that it may have been installed sometime around 2016-18.
This is consistent with the two photographs showing the condition of the lounge carpet at the start of the tenancy, but of course this is very limited evidence.
Having regard to the limited evidence provided by the landlord about the age and condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, it is appropriate to take a cautious approach.
I will apply depreciation on the carpet based on an estimated age of approximately 7 years at the end of the tenancy. An ‘average’ life expectancy for carpet is 15 years. This figure can vary significantly depending on the quality of the carpet and a range of other factors, but I was not provided with any specific information about the carpet that would cause me to adjust that ‘average’ life expectancy.
Therefore I will apply depreciation of 45% to the new replacement cost claimed. Fraudulent bond release
The claim seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the tenants allegedly completed, signed, and submitted a bond release form and thereby fraudulently received $1,690.81 from the bond.
Mr Tobin denied the allegation, but he could not provide an explanation as to how the Bond Centre came to receive a signed bond form in a different format and with different information than the draft that [The landlord’s representative 1] sent to himself and Ms Wealleans at the end of the tenancy.
In any event, my finding is that even if the landlord’s claim it would not provide the basis of a claim for exemplary damages.
The Tribunal may only award exemplary damages in respect of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that the Act states are “unlawful acts” 4 .
The RTA sets out the maximum amount of exemplary damages that the Tribunal can award in respect of those specific breaches 5 .
The tenants’ alleged actions cannot be linked to any of those breaches that are declared to be unlawful acts. Filing fee, name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application. The landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee for this application 6 .
Name suppression is granted to the landlord 7 . 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Schedule 1A, RTA 6 Section 104(2)(a) RTA
The landlord has received $649.19 from the bond. The balance owed by the tenants is $2,510.47.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681489 — Property damage at 6 Ngatiti Place, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681489 — Property damage at 6 Ngatiti Place, One Tree Point, One Tree Point 0118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions