What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4686450 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 4686450?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686450?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9535696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4686450 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 4686450?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686450?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9535696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

247 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4686450 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4686450 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
My Property Manager Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by a support person and assisted with the services of the court-appointed Korean interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.

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 landlord seeks compensation for the following: Compensation for rent reduction for new tenants:
The landlord says that there were a number of issues with the property which were not apparent at the time the new tenants moved in. The landlord says that these issues included plumbing, blind repair, missing keys, gas hob burners blocked and some electrical rewiring.
The landlord claims that there were multiple cats at the property and that the biggest issue was the cat wee smell. The new tenancy started on 23 June 2023. When the new tenants moved in they were unable to use the two large bedrooms. The landlord says this was because of the cat wee smell. The landlord compensated the new tenants with a rent reduction. It was at this point the landlord discovered that the carpet in the master bedroom would need replacing. The landlord is not claiming the cost of carpet replacement as they acknowledge they do not know how old the carpet is. Carpet Treatment:
The landlord says that they had to have another company attend for a second round of carpet treatment to address the cat wee smell for all carpet. General Cleaning:
The landlord says that when they conducted the exit inspection, they discovered that the house had not been cleaned. Bath Cleaner:
The landlord claims that they had to purchase a special cleaner for the bath to clear the spa lines. No evidence was provided by the landlord to confirm the condition of the bath at the start of the tenancy. Floor sealing and smooth edge replacement:
The landlord claims that the urine smell permeated the floorboards and smooth edges. This required the floorboards to be re-sealed and some of the smooth edges replaced. Tenant’s Response:
The tenant provided photographic evidence taken on the day of exiting. She confirmed that she cleaned the house herself. The tenant says that she spent the entire week cleaning the house.
The tenant states that she is not responsible for the cat wee smell. She says that the house was built in the 1950’s and that the cat week smell could have come from any source. She also stated that at least 8 inspections were carried out by the late owner and no issues were raised.
The photographs as supplied by the tenant show the carpet to be in poor condition.
The tenant says that she has never used the bath and should not be held responsible for the cost of cleaning the spa lines.
The tenant says that during the inspection dated 16 February 2023 she was stranded in Auckland as a result of the extreme weather and as a result the landlord attended by herself. The landlord emailed the tenant regarding the smell. The next inspection was in June 2023 and no mention of the cat smell was raised by the landlord.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord conducted a pre-exit inspection. Also present at the inspection was the tenant and her support person. The parties went through the house room by room. The tenant had requested the pre-exit inspection so that she would know if there were any issues.
The tenant claims that there is a pattern of the landlord trying to claim for issues that the tenant is not responsible for. On 8 June 2023 the tenant says that there was a conversation regarding the carpet being old and worn. Analysis and Findings:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided limited evidence in support of the various claims made. In support of these claims the landlord provided photographs on 26 June 2023 and from the exit inspection. I have also sighted email correspondence and invoices. There is no evidence provided by the landlord which indicates the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the claims as filed. Applications of this type must be evidence based and the landlord has not satisfied me to the required standard. While I acknowledge the exit photographs provided by the landlord there should have been, at the very least, a proper entry report with photographs filed in support of the application. Without entry photographs it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine the overall condition of the inside of the property at the start of the tenancy. This is vital when claiming compensation for damage at the conclusion of any tenancy.
I am also satisfied that there is no evidential foundation provided by the landlord which links the tenant to the damage claims.
This is an application by the landlord for compensation. This means that the landlord carries the onus to prove that the tenant is liable for the costs claimed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
For this reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.
The tenant filed an application opposing the landlord’s claims. Because the tenant has succeeded with her application I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4686450 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
My Property Manager Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by a support person and assisted with the services of the court-appointed Korean interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.

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 landlord seeks compensation for the following: Compensation for rent reduction for new tenants:
The landlord says that there were a number of issues with the property which were not apparent at the time the new tenants moved in. The landlord says that these issues included plumbing, blind repair, missing keys, gas hob burners blocked and some electrical rewiring.
The landlord claims that there were multiple cats at the property and that the biggest issue was the cat wee smell. The new tenancy started on 23 June 2023. When the new tenants moved in they were unable to use the two large bedrooms. The landlord says this was because of the cat wee smell. The landlord compensated the new tenants with a rent reduction. It was at this point the landlord discovered that the carpet in the master bedroom would need replacing. The landlord is not claiming the cost of carpet replacement as they acknowledge they do not know how old the carpet is. Carpet Treatment:
The landlord says that they had to have another company attend for a second round of carpet treatment to address the cat wee smell for all carpet. General Cleaning:
The landlord says that when they conducted the exit inspection, they discovered that the house had not been cleaned. Bath Cleaner:
The landlord claims that they had to purchase a special cleaner for the bath to clear the spa lines. No evidence was provided by the landlord to confirm the condition of the bath at the start of the tenancy. Floor sealing and smooth edge replacement:
The landlord claims that the urine smell permeated the floorboards and smooth edges. This required the floorboards to be re-sealed and some of the smooth edges replaced. Tenant’s Response:
The tenant provided photographic evidence taken on the day of exiting. She confirmed that she cleaned the house herself. The tenant says that she spent the entire week cleaning the house.
The tenant states that she is not responsible for the cat wee smell. She says that the house was built in the 1950’s and that the cat week smell could have come from any source. She also stated that at least 8 inspections were carried out by the late owner and no issues were raised.
The photographs as supplied by the tenant show the carpet to be in poor condition.
The tenant says that she has never used the bath and should not be held responsible for the cost of cleaning the spa lines.
The tenant says that during the inspection dated 16 February 2023 she was stranded in Auckland as a result of the extreme weather and as a result the landlord attended by herself. The landlord emailed the tenant regarding the smell. The next inspection was in June 2023 and no mention of the cat smell was raised by the landlord.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord conducted a pre-exit inspection. Also present at the inspection was the tenant and her support person. The parties went through the house room by room. The tenant had requested the pre-exit inspection so that she would know if there were any issues.
The tenant claims that there is a pattern of the landlord trying to claim for issues that the tenant is not responsible for. On 8 June 2023 the tenant says that there was a conversation regarding the carpet being old and worn. Analysis and Findings:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided limited evidence in support of the various claims made. In support of these claims the landlord provided photographs on 26 June 2023 and from the exit inspection. I have also sighted email correspondence and invoices. There is no evidence provided by the landlord which indicates the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the claims as filed. Applications of this type must be evidence based and the landlord has not satisfied me to the required standard. While I acknowledge the exit photographs provided by the landlord there should have been, at the very least, a proper entry report with photographs filed in support of the application. Without entry photographs it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine the overall condition of the inside of the property at the start of the tenancy. This is vital when claiming compensation for damage at the conclusion of any tenancy.
I am also satisfied that there is no evidential foundation provided by the landlord which links the tenant to the damage claims.
This is an application by the landlord for compensation. This means that the landlord carries the onus to prove that the tenant is liable for the costs claimed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
For this reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.
The tenant filed an application opposing the landlord’s claims. Because the tenant has succeeded with her application I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4686450 — Tenancy dispute at 247 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4686450 — Tenancy dispute at 247 Wairakei Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

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