What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4770139 about?

The tribunal order states: Theresa Mary Newell must pay [the landlord] $993.01 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4770139?

Cleaning: $129.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $648.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,884.19 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770139?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10298655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4770139 about?

The tribunal order states: Theresa Mary Newell must pay [the landlord] $993.01 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4770139?

Cleaning: $129.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $648.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,884.19 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770139?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10298655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4770139 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4770139 — net $993.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning wooden flooring and skirting boards	$129.38	Cleaning wooden flooring and skirting boards
Curtain cleaning	$648.00	Curtain cleaning
Replacement of vinyl in toilet and bathroom and hallway	$1,884.19	Replacement of vinyl in toilet and bathroom and hallway
Removal of toilet pan for vinyl replacement	$391.00	Removal of toilet pan for vinyl replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$993.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$993.01

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 and is the tenant responsible for the damage to the vinyl flooring?

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.

The landlord produced photographic evidence and two 14-day notices to remedy the cat urine smell and faeces marks and to clean and tidy the premises (21 July 2023 and 11 August 2023). The re-inspection notes show the tenant did not remedy these issues.

The landlord also provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and that the premises required some additional cleaning.

The tenant confirmed that the cat feared a dog in the vicinity of the premises and at times it had defecated inside as it was too scared to go outside. She agreed that the cat had left faeces on a front door mat at one property inspection, but claims the mat was her mat and the faeces were not on the flooring.

The tenant also claimed the cat only ever defecated on mats and not on the floor and that the cat was always shut out of the toilet area during the tenancy.

The tenant also produced evidence by way of statements from persons who had lived with her and the cat in other tenancies and those that had visited her regularly that attested to there being no cat odour in the flooring or curtains and the cat not having defecated or urinated inside in other tenancies before and after this tenancy. Further, the tenant confirmed that cat did not need a dirt tray and never urinated or left faeces inside in the other two tenancies as there were no dogs in the vicinity of these properties to scare it.

The tenant did provide two photographs in evidence of small amounts of cat faeces on the vinyl floor that were the size of the tenant’s fingernail or smaller. This proves the cat had defecated inside the house on at least one or more occasions.

To support its claims, the landlord produced photographic evidence that supports its claim that the tenant’s cat had urinated and defecated inside of the house and that this had led to yellow stains on the vinyl in the entrance way and in the back lefthand corner of the toilet. Two property managers, the owner and a vinyl flooring specialist have attested to the cat smell in and damage to the vinyl and the flooring special confirmed that there was evidence of cat urine under the vinyl when it was lifted to be replaced.

The tenant claimed there had been issues with the toilet earlier on in her tenancy but did not produce any evidence that supported her defence that the yellow satins in the toilet were because of those issues. The landlord confirmed those issues were addressed and came from below the flooring and not from the floor around the toilet.

The tenant also claimed that vinyl flooring cannot absorb cat urine. The vinyl flooring specialist can confirm that vinyl flooring can be resistant to stains and spills, including pet urine, but it is not completely pee-proof. If pet urine is left on vinyl flooring for an extended period, it can potentially stain or discolour the flooring and that is what the flooring specialist says occurred during this tenancy.

Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I am satisfied that the damage to the vinyl in the hallway and the toilet were from cat urine and that the tenant is responsible for the cost of replacing the vinyl as pet related damage is not covered by the owner’s insurance.

The landlord also provided evidence that the curtains had an odour of cat and cat excrement and the curtains required cleaning from two property managers, the owner and the cleaning company who all confirmed the presence of the odour in the curtains. The tenant denied the curtains contained any odour and directed me to the handwritten statements from her friends that refutes the landlord’s claim. I prefer the evidence of the property managers, the owner, and the curtain cleaning specialist to that of the tenant and her friends and as such find in favour of the landlord regarding its claims for compensation for the cost of curtain cleaning.

Given the amount of cat excrement issues evident in the curtains and on the vinyl, the landlord also produced evidence the owner expressed concerns about the cleanliness of the wooden floorboard and skirting board and asked the property managers to have the wooden floors and skirting boards commercially cleaned before letting the premises out to a new tenant. The tenant pointed to the comments made to her by the landlord’s wooden flooring specialist who stated he could not see or smell any evidence of cat excrement in the floorboards but did detect a strong disinfectant smell, that suggested to him the tenant had been cleaning cat excrement off the wooden flooring. I am satisfied that the landlord’s claims for compensation for the cost to clean the wooden floors and skirting boards have been proven.

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.

I am satisfied that the vinyl flooring was new at the start of the tenancy and that at the end of the tenancy it had been damaged by what a vinyl flooring specialist confirmed was cat urine. The tenant confirmed she had a cat, it feared dogs in the neighbourhood and from time to time relieved itself inside. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant’s cat caused the damage to the vinyl flooring during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the tenant’s friends handwritten do not disprove the tenant’s liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered for both cleaning and damages are proved.

I have considered 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, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because [the applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4770139 — net $993.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning wooden flooring and skirting boards	$129.38	Cleaning wooden flooring and skirting boards
Curtain cleaning	$648.00	Curtain cleaning
Replacement of vinyl in toilet and bathroom and hallway	$1,884.19	Replacement of vinyl in toilet and bathroom and hallway
Removal of toilet pan for vinyl replacement	$391.00	Removal of toilet pan for vinyl replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$993.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$993.01

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant also claimed the cat only ever defecated on mats and not on the floor and that the cat was always shut out of the toilet area during the tenancy.

The amounts ordered for both cleaning and damages are proved.

Because [the applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770139 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770139 — Property damage

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