What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773778?

The tribunal order states: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited must pay Lauren Gail Taylor

How much money was awarded in case 4773778?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773778?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773778?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475116-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773778?

The tribunal order states: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited must pay Lauren Gail Taylor

How much money was awarded in case 4773778?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773778?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773778?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475116-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Oranga Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773778 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773778 — 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	$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited must pay Lauren Gail Taylor and Ernalyn Mariano Vasquez $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (6470774-004) to pay Lauren Gail Taylor and Ernalyn Mariano Vasquez immediately.

Reasons

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.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
There was damage done to the carpet during the tenancy in the small bedroom from baby vomit and in the lounge from dog vomit and a small tea stain in the lounge. The tenants say these stains were accidental and not the result of careless or intentional acts or omissions. They also proved that they took all reasonably practicable steps to address these carpet stains by having professional carpet stain removal companies come to clean and treat these stains. They accept the dog vomit stain was still slightly visible after treatment and the cleaning of the baby vomit stain has slightly lightened the carpet. They do not accept the damage is anything more than wear and tear. I agree, there is no evidence to justify an award of the insurance excesses sought by the landlord as the damage was clearly accidental and can only be classified as fair wear and tear from having a young family living in the premise for a year.
The large red stain in the lounge is less clear. The tenants say the stain was not there when they moved out on Friday 8 December 2023 and the Property Managers have proven it was there on Monday 11 December 2023.
The tenants have proven that as soon as there is a stain, they have sought assistance from a professional carpet cleaning company. They produced an invoice from September 2023 when the female tenant had dropped a wet baby wrap on the floor, and it had stained the carpet in the bedroom. She had all the carpets steam cleaned in the lounge and hallway and had stain removal treatment done on the baby wrap stain in the bedroom. She says at first the carpet contractor had thought he could not fully restore the carpet in the bedroom but had sprayed something on it that faded it right out in a few days, leaving no visible stain. At the time he wrote the 4 September 2023 invoice he had not been able to fully restore the carpet in the bedroom and notes that on the invoice. The landlord tried to rely on this comment from September 2023 to justify the claim the tenants had made the red stain in the lounge carelessly.
The tenants say there was no mention of the red stain on the lounge carpet in the September/October property inspection report, because it was not there at this time. Further, they say they do not know how or when the red stain was made or what caused it. They also claimed that had they seen it when they moved out they would have had it treated immediately as it was not in their interest to leave it there when that would impact on their ability to have their bond refunded.
The premise had a keypad with a code that only the owners, the property management company and the tenants could access. It remains unclear to me how or when the red-carpet stain was made and if it was made between the tenants move out date (8/12/23) and final inspection date (11/12/23).
: On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenants would have had the stain treated if it had been there when they vacated and cleaned the premises on 8 December 2023. They proved they hired a rug doctor and cleaned all the carpets, and they would have noticed the large prominent red stain on the lounge carpet had it been there that day. Further, the tenants got a stain removal specialist in to treat the stain as soon as the property manager notified them about it, despite claiming the stain was not made by them. All but a small mark was removed in this treatment. The tenants have disproved liability for the damage, and I find the stain to be fair wear and tear and not because of the tenants careless of intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for two insurance excesses for carpet replacement are dismissed for lack of evidence that the damage that led to the carpet being replaced was more than fair wear and tear. Tenants claims
The tenants applied for reimbursement of the carpet cleaning costs from the landlord as some insurers refund this cost if the carpet could not be restored by cleaning and later has to be replaced.
The landlord confirmed that Tower Insurance does not have this in the landlord’s insurance policy and therefore that cost has not been reimbursed to it.
The tenants accept that by undertaking this cleaning they had mitigated any liability for the carpet replacement and accepted they would not be compensated for these costs. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants also claimed reimbursement for their moving costs as they had to move quickly to allow the owners to reoccupy the premise and then the owners delayed their re-occupation date. This is not a remedy open to me to award. This claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not been successful in its application, its claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773778 — 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	$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited must pay Lauren Gail Taylor and Ernalyn Mariano Vasquez $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (6470774-004) to pay Lauren Gail Taylor and Ernalyn Mariano Vasquez immediately.

Reasons

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.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
There was damage done to the carpet during the tenancy in the small bedroom from baby vomit and in the lounge from dog vomit and a small tea stain in the lounge. The tenants say these stains were accidental and not the result of careless or intentional acts or omissions. They also proved that they took all reasonably practicable steps to address these carpet stains by having professional carpet stain removal companies come to clean and treat these stains. They accept the dog vomit stain was still slightly visible after treatment and the cleaning of the baby vomit stain has slightly lightened the carpet. They do not accept the damage is anything more than wear and tear. I agree, there is no evidence to justify an award of the insurance excesses sought by the landlord as the damage was clearly accidental and can only be classified as fair wear and tear from having a young family living in the premise for a year.
The large red stain in the lounge is less clear. The tenants say the stain was not there when they moved out on Friday 8 December 2023 and the Property Managers have proven it was there on Monday 11 December 2023.
The tenants have proven that as soon as there is a stain, they have sought assistance from a professional carpet cleaning company. They produced an invoice from September 2023 when the female tenant had dropped a wet baby wrap on the floor, and it had stained the carpet in the bedroom. She had all the carpets steam cleaned in the lounge and hallway and had stain removal treatment done on the baby wrap stain in the bedroom. She says at first the carpet contractor had thought he could not fully restore the carpet in the bedroom but had sprayed something on it that faded it right out in a few days, leaving no visible stain. At the time he wrote the 4 September 2023 invoice he had not been able to fully restore the carpet in the bedroom and notes that on the invoice. The landlord tried to rely on this comment from September 2023 to justify the claim the tenants had made the red stain in the lounge carelessly.
The tenants say there was no mention of the red stain on the lounge carpet in the September/October property inspection report, because it was not there at this time. Further, they say they do not know how or when the red stain was made or what caused it. They also claimed that had they seen it when they moved out they would have had it treated immediately as it was not in their interest to leave it there when that would impact on their ability to have their bond refunded.
The premise had a keypad with a code that only the owners, the property management company and the tenants could access. It remains unclear to me how or when the red-carpet stain was made and if it was made between the tenants move out date (8/12/23) and final inspection date (11/12/23).
: On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenants would have had the stain treated if it had been there when they vacated and cleaned the premises on 8 December 2023. They proved they hired a rug doctor and cleaned all the carpets, and they would have noticed the large prominent red stain on the lounge carpet had it been there that day. Further, the tenants got a stain removal specialist in to treat the stain as soon as the property manager notified them about it, despite claiming the stain was not made by them. All but a small mark was removed in this treatment. The tenants have disproved liability for the damage, and I find the stain to be fair wear and tear and not because of the tenants careless of intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for two insurance excesses for carpet replacement are dismissed for lack of evidence that the damage that led to the carpet being replaced was more than fair wear and tear. Tenants claims
The tenants applied for reimbursement of the carpet cleaning costs from the landlord as some insurers refund this cost if the carpet could not be restored by cleaning and later has to be replaced.
The landlord confirmed that Tower Insurance does not have this in the landlord’s insurance policy and therefore that cost has not been reimbursed to it.
The tenants accept that by undertaking this cleaning they had mitigated any liability for the carpet replacement and accepted they would not be compensated for these costs. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants also claimed reimbursement for their moving costs as they had to move quickly to allow the owners to reoccupy the premise and then the owners delayed their re-occupation date. This is not a remedy open to me to award. This claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not been successful in its application, its claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773778 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Oranga Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773778 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Oranga Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions