What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755689 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4755689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10071584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755689 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4755689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10071584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755689 — Cleanliness

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for carpet cleaning carried out at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided photos of the carpet at the end of the tenancy and copies of invoices for the hire of a [carpet cleaning machine]. Having considered the evidence and remembering that the burden of proving the claim is on the landlord, I dismiss the claim as the landlord has not proven that the premises were less than reasonably clean and tidy to the standard required.

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. The landlord has insurance with an excess on each and every claim of $550.00.
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 says that the carpet was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy. The landlord evidence consisted of a sketch drawn by [carpet cleaning company] showing the location of the stains and photos of the carpet with post it notes showing the location of the pet urine.
The tenant had a cat during the term of the tenancy, but says that it was extremely well toilet trained.
The tenants said that when they first entered the premises at the start of the tenancy, they noticed a strong dog odour. They also discovered dog fur throughout the house.
The landlord was unable to say if the stains were from a cat or a dog or whether the stains may have been as a result of a pet from the previous tenancy.
In light of that evidence, I find that the landlord has been unable to prove to the required standard that the damage occurred during this tenancy and the application is dismissed.
The landlord said that the carpet may have been 10 years old. Substantial depreciation in value would have occurred in a tenancy over that period. In the event that the landlord had been able to prove all the elements required it may be that the depreciated value was well less than the amount claimed.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.
The tenant has been wholly substantial and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered.

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for carpet cleaning carried out at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided photos of the carpet at the end of the tenancy and copies of invoices for the hire of a [carpet cleaning machine]. Having considered the evidence and remembering that the burden of proving the claim is on the landlord, I dismiss the claim as the landlord has not proven that the premises were less than reasonably clean and tidy to the standard required.

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. The landlord has insurance with an excess on each and every claim of $550.00.
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 says that the carpet was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy. The landlord evidence consisted of a sketch drawn by [carpet cleaning company] showing the location of the stains and photos of the carpet with post it notes showing the location of the pet urine.
The tenant had a cat during the term of the tenancy, but says that it was extremely well toilet trained.
The tenants said that when they first entered the premises at the start of the tenancy, they noticed a strong dog odour. They also discovered dog fur throughout the house.
The landlord was unable to say if the stains were from a cat or a dog or whether the stains may have been as a result of a pet from the previous tenancy.
In light of that evidence, I find that the landlord has been unable to prove to the required standard that the damage occurred during this tenancy and the application is dismissed.
The landlord said that the carpet may have been 10 years old. Substantial depreciation in value would have occurred in a tenancy over that period. In the event that the landlord had been able to prove all the elements required it may be that the depreciated value was well less than the amount claimed.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.
The tenant has been wholly substantial and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755689 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755689 — Cleanliness

At a glance

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

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