What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699891 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4699891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699891?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599786-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699891 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4699891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699891?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599786-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Merehai Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699891 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking a termination of the tenancy due to damage in the premises.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.
For the reasons I explained at the hearing, and as I will set out below, the application for termination must be dismissed.
The background in this case is not in dispute, and can be succinctly summarised for the purpose of this written decision as follows: a. The Tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, and the parties agree that the Tenancy comes to an end on 15 December 2023. b. During the tenancy the carpet has been widely damaged. The landlord reports that the carpet requires replacement in four of six rooms. As I understand matters, the carpet has been damaged from pots placed on the carpet, which have caused rotting to occur, and I also understand that there were issues with pet urine damage. I wish to emphasise that in this order I will not make any findings as to liability for the tenant, but for the purpose of the discussion will proceed on the basis that the damage claimed by the landlord, was caused by the tenant, or an earlier co-tenant who has since been removed from the Tenancy. c. The landlord also describes damage to the basin in the bathroom. It is not entirely clear to me what has caused this damage, but the white coating on the outside of the basin has been eroded somehow, and I accept the basin requires replacement. The tenant is not sure how that damage occurred. But again for the purpose of this decision, I will assume the damage was caused by the tenant. d. The landlord also reported that one of the wardrobe doors has been damaged, but the landlord accepted that damage is minor on the scheme of things. e. The landlord issued a 14 day notice to the tenant to remedy, and has subsequently proceeded to the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy. That is the matter before me. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy, on the basis that the landlord considers the damage to have been substantial. The landlord recognises that the tenancy will terminate at the end of the fixed term period in about 6 weeks, but wishes to have the premises returned sooner so that any repair works can be completed. The landlord also has reservations as to whether further damage to the premises will occur.
As I explained at the hearing, there are two provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which are of relevance, those are the termination provisions of section 55, and section 56.
Section 55 is strict, and confirms that the Tribunal “shall” order a termination of the tenancy in various circumstances, including where: the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises;
The most significant damage to the premises occurred to the carpet, and the tenant has not disputed that the damage has been caused by her pots placed on the carpet, or pet urine from her earlier co-tenant who has now left the premises.
The term “substantial damage” is not defined in the RTA, so it must be given its ordinary meaning. When I consider the damage described by the landlord, and demonstrated in the photographs, I am not persuaded that the damage to the carpet, the basin or wardrobe door would be classed as substantial damage. There was no suggestion that the premises are not habitable, there is no structural damage to the tenancy, and there is no evidence that the landlord is breaching some legal obligation to the tenant or community generally from the damage. Those factors would argue for a finding the damage was substantial, but the factors do not point to substantial damage.
There is also no evidence that would suggest any continuing damage is likely to occur.
In short, the landlord has not established to the Tribunals satisfaction that the damage is substantial damage, meaning the application for termination under section 55 cannot succeed.
The other provision which a termination could be ordered under, is section 56. Section 56 is not as strict as section 55, in order to terminate the tenancy there are a number of requirements that must be met. Those are: a. The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, or the RTA; and b. In the case of a breach capable of remedy, the landlord must have issued a 14 day notice to remedy, which the tenant failed to action within the required period; and c. The breach must be of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be an equitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Again for the purpose of this decision I will accept that the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, as it relates to the damage to the premises. If the carpet has been damage from the tenants pots, or a tenant pet, the tenant will be liable for the damage. I am not certain in relation to the cause of the damage to the basin, or the wardrobe door, but for arguments sake I will assume that damage to arise from the tenant.
The next question, is whether the landlord has given a 14 day notice to remedy the breach (which the landlord has), if the breach was capable of remedy, and whether the tenant has complied with that notice. In my assessment, the breach is capable of remedy. The breach is the tenant damaging the property, and of course that breach can be remedied by the tenant ceasing any further damage. Having heard from the tenant, I accept that any ongoing damage to the carpet, the basin, or the wardrobe door has ceased, and to that extent the tenant has complied with the 14 day notice.
Because I find the tenant has complied with the 14 day notice for a breach capable of remedy, that is the end of any consideration for termination under section 56, a termination cannot be ordered.
However, even if the tenant had not complied with the 14 day notice, based on my understanding of the situation I would likely have declined to order a termination because I would have concluded that the breach was not of such a nature or extent, that it would have been an inequitable to refuse termination of the tenancy. I accept that some of the carpet damage from the pots occurred when the tenant was unwell. Furthermore, the damage described by the landlord would fall well short of the level of damage in which the Tribunal would order termination of the tenancy.
Before I conclude this decision, I wish to emphasise that for the purpose of my above discussion I have proceeded on the basis that the tenant is liable for the damage to the carpet, basin and wardrobe door. While the damage to the carpet is likely to be the liability of the tenant, and the tenant accepts that is the case, I am uncertain as to the cause of the damage to the wardrobe and basin, and so express no final view in relation to that damage. As I noted at the hearing, normally issues in relation to compensation for damage is determined at the end of the tenancy. It may be that the matter returns to the Tribunal when the Tenancy has ended, in relation to a claim for compensation for the damage. The Tribunal will need to reach a finding as to the tenants liability for all of the damage claimed, and my order should not be read as reaching any view on those matters.
I also note that it is one thing for a tenant to be liable for damage, but it is another to determine the level at which any monetary compensation should be provided. With any claim before the Tribunal consideration is made to depreciation of the item, and that is not a matter before the Tribunal today, but would need to be considered if any claim for damage is filed.
But for the reasons set out above, the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking a termination of the tenancy due to damage in the premises.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.
For the reasons I explained at the hearing, and as I will set out below, the application for termination must be dismissed.
The background in this case is not in dispute, and can be succinctly summarised for the purpose of this written decision as follows: a. The Tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, and the parties agree that the Tenancy comes to an end on 15 December 2023. b. During the tenancy the carpet has been widely damaged. The landlord reports that the carpet requires replacement in four of six rooms. As I understand matters, the carpet has been damaged from pots placed on the carpet, which have caused rotting to occur, and I also understand that there were issues with pet urine damage. I wish to emphasise that in this order I will not make any findings as to liability for the tenant, but for the purpose of the discussion will proceed on the basis that the damage claimed by the landlord, was caused by the tenant, or an earlier co-tenant who has since been removed from the Tenancy. c. The landlord also describes damage to the basin in the bathroom. It is not entirely clear to me what has caused this damage, but the white coating on the outside of the basin has been eroded somehow, and I accept the basin requires replacement. The tenant is not sure how that damage occurred. But again for the purpose of this decision, I will assume the damage was caused by the tenant. d. The landlord also reported that one of the wardrobe doors has been damaged, but the landlord accepted that damage is minor on the scheme of things. e. The landlord issued a 14 day notice to the tenant to remedy, and has subsequently proceeded to the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy. That is the matter before me. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy, on the basis that the landlord considers the damage to have been substantial. The landlord recognises that the tenancy will terminate at the end of the fixed term period in about 6 weeks, but wishes to have the premises returned sooner so that any repair works can be completed. The landlord also has reservations as to whether further damage to the premises will occur.
As I explained at the hearing, there are two provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which are of relevance, those are the termination provisions of section 55, and section 56.
Section 55 is strict, and confirms that the Tribunal “shall” order a termination of the tenancy in various circumstances, including where: the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises;
The most significant damage to the premises occurred to the carpet, and the tenant has not disputed that the damage has been caused by her pots placed on the carpet, or pet urine from her earlier co-tenant who has now left the premises.
The term “substantial damage” is not defined in the RTA, so it must be given its ordinary meaning. When I consider the damage described by the landlord, and demonstrated in the photographs, I am not persuaded that the damage to the carpet, the basin or wardrobe door would be classed as substantial damage. There was no suggestion that the premises are not habitable, there is no structural damage to the tenancy, and there is no evidence that the landlord is breaching some legal obligation to the tenant or community generally from the damage. Those factors would argue for a finding the damage was substantial, but the factors do not point to substantial damage.
There is also no evidence that would suggest any continuing damage is likely to occur.
In short, the landlord has not established to the Tribunals satisfaction that the damage is substantial damage, meaning the application for termination under section 55 cannot succeed.
The other provision which a termination could be ordered under, is section 56. Section 56 is not as strict as section 55, in order to terminate the tenancy there are a number of requirements that must be met. Those are: a. The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, or the RTA; and b. In the case of a breach capable of remedy, the landlord must have issued a 14 day notice to remedy, which the tenant failed to action within the required period; and c. The breach must be of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be an equitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Again for the purpose of this decision I will accept that the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, as it relates to the damage to the premises. If the carpet has been damage from the tenants pots, or a tenant pet, the tenant will be liable for the damage. I am not certain in relation to the cause of the damage to the basin, or the wardrobe door, but for arguments sake I will assume that damage to arise from the tenant.
The next question, is whether the landlord has given a 14 day notice to remedy the breach (which the landlord has), if the breach was capable of remedy, and whether the tenant has complied with that notice. In my assessment, the breach is capable of remedy. The breach is the tenant damaging the property, and of course that breach can be remedied by the tenant ceasing any further damage. Having heard from the tenant, I accept that any ongoing damage to the carpet, the basin, or the wardrobe door has ceased, and to that extent the tenant has complied with the 14 day notice.
Because I find the tenant has complied with the 14 day notice for a breach capable of remedy, that is the end of any consideration for termination under section 56, a termination cannot be ordered.
However, even if the tenant had not complied with the 14 day notice, based on my understanding of the situation I would likely have declined to order a termination because I would have concluded that the breach was not of such a nature or extent, that it would have been an inequitable to refuse termination of the tenancy. I accept that some of the carpet damage from the pots occurred when the tenant was unwell. Furthermore, the damage described by the landlord would fall well short of the level of damage in which the Tribunal would order termination of the tenancy.
Before I conclude this decision, I wish to emphasise that for the purpose of my above discussion I have proceeded on the basis that the tenant is liable for the damage to the carpet, basin and wardrobe door. While the damage to the carpet is likely to be the liability of the tenant, and the tenant accepts that is the case, I am uncertain as to the cause of the damage to the wardrobe and basin, and so express no final view in relation to that damage. As I noted at the hearing, normally issues in relation to compensation for damage is determined at the end of the tenancy. It may be that the matter returns to the Tribunal when the Tenancy has ended, in relation to a claim for compensation for the damage. The Tribunal will need to reach a finding as to the tenants liability for all of the damage claimed, and my order should not be read as reaching any view on those matters.
I also note that it is one thing for a tenant to be liable for damage, but it is another to determine the level at which any monetary compensation should be provided. With any claim before the Tribunal consideration is made to depreciation of the item, and that is not a matter before the Tribunal today, but would need to be considered if any claim for damage is filed.
But for the reasons set out above, the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699891 — 14-day notice at 10 Merehai Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699891 — 14-day notice at 10 Merehai Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions