What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782481 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $424.10 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4782481?

Property Damage: $247.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782481?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10009214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782481 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $424.10 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4782481?

Property Damage: $247.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782481?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10009214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Willow Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782481 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782481 — net $424.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Contribution to carpet repair	$247.00	Contribution to carpet repair
Contribution to wallpaper repair	$177.10	Contribution to wallpaper repair
Net award	$424.10
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$424.10

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $424.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $424.10 [The tenant/s]: $1,575.90

Reasons

[The property manager] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant], the tenant, also attended the hearing, along with two support people, [Support person 1] and [Support person 2].
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the hearing, the landlord withdrew two of their claims – a claim for $177.43 for greenwaste removal and fireplace clean, and another claim for $400.00 for damage to wallpaper.

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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet stains
The landlord said the tenant caused carpet stains at the property during the tenancy, mainly in the lounge and area where the lounge went into the dining room. The landlord acknowledged that, in their Entry Report dated 30 July 2021 they noted historical marks on the flooring and carpet that showed wearing, tears and stains, including in the lounge. The owner provided two rugs for this tenant because of this. It was difficult to see the detail of any earlier staining in the Entry Report photographs to ascertain the extent of those stains at the start of the tenancy in the lounge area, though some stains could be ascertained in the lounge area at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord pointed to photographs in an Exit Report dated 1 December 2023, that showed stains on the carpet, particularly in the lounge area and the area between the lounge and dining room.
The tenant acknowledged that there was a drink stain on the lounge carpet caused by somebody spilling a drink at her son’s 2 nd birthday party. Given she had her L-shaped couch across a section of the lounge that overlapped with the area where further stains were alleged to have been caused, she said she could not say for certain whether her family caused any other carpet stains in the area between the lounge and dining room. She acknowledged though that that area was a busy thoroughfare during her family’s time at the property.
The tenant said she had paid for a professional cleaner to come and clean the carpets, after she did a [carpet] clean herself, but was not happy with the results. She felt that the professional cleaner, with their use of chemicals, had not improved the appearance of some areas with stains and felt that the darkness around some stains in Exit Report photographs could be due to the chemicals from this professional clean, as it was done on 29 November 2023 and the Exit Report was completed on 1 December 2023, only a couple of days difference.
Given the evidence as outlined above, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of any carpet staining caused by the tenant or her young children, except as that acknowledged by the tenant. This is especially so, given the Entry Report that notes wearing, tears and stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
However, the tenant has acknowledged there was some carpet staining caused by her family. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord said that the carpet is at least 24 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of a carpet in a rental property, especially in a living room area, is around 8-10 years. As such, I find that the carpet would have exceeded its lifespan by a significant period. However, I also accept that the carpet was nevertheless in a functional condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a couple of extra years left. On that basis and given the period by which the carpet would have exceeded its lifespan, I award the landlord 10% of the replacement cost of the carpet. The landlord provided a quote for replacing the carpet in the lounge, dining area and entryway in the amount of $2,470.00. Therefore, I award the landlord 10% of this replacement cost, which is $247.00, as the tenant’s contribution to the carpet replacement. Wallpaper
The landlord claimed the tenant had damaged the wallpaper in two of the bedrooms, on two different walls in each of those two bedrooms. The landlord provided photographs of this, where peeling of wallpaper was evident in two bedrooms. The landlord said the wallpaper could not be replaced, given its age. The landlord confirmed that in its Entry Report, it is noted that the wallpaper is separating in three of the bedrooms and there were small dents and marks in it, at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that her young son, under 2 years old, had peeled most of the wallpaper in the photographs and that the cot where her baby son slept had created some peeling in wallpaper also. Given that the wallpaper had been separating at the start of the tenancy, the tenant did not feel she should bear the entire cost of replacing the wallpaper.
Given the evidence, particularly that the tenant acknowledged her young son had peeled the wallpaper in several places, I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord said the wallpaper was also likely more than 24 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of wallpaper in a rental property is around 5-12 years. Thus, the wallpaper would have exceeded its lifespan by a significant period. However, I also accept that the wallpaper was nevertheless in a functional condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a couple of extra years left. On that basis and given the period by which the wallpaper would have exceeded its lifespan, I award the landlord 10% of the replacement cost for the wallpaper on the affected walls in the two affected bedrooms, as quoted by the landlord for $1,771.00, which is $177.10. Therefore, I award the landlord $177.10, as the tenant’s contribution towards the wallpaper replacement on the affected walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $424.10 [The tenant/s]: $1,575.90 Filing fee
Because both parties have had some success with their respective claims, I do not award any filing fee to either party. Suppression
Also, as both parties have had some success with their respective claims, both are entitled to name suppression, which was requested by both parties. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s and the landlord’s names and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782481 — net $424.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Contribution to carpet repair	$247.00	Contribution to carpet repair
Contribution to wallpaper repair	$177.10	Contribution to wallpaper repair
Net award	$424.10
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$424.10

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $424.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $424.10 [The tenant/s]: $1,575.90

Reasons

[The property manager] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant], the tenant, also attended the hearing, along with two support people, [Support person 1] and [Support person 2].
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the hearing, the landlord withdrew two of their claims – a claim for $177.43 for greenwaste removal and fireplace clean, and another claim for $400.00 for damage to wallpaper.

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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet stains
The landlord said the tenant caused carpet stains at the property during the tenancy, mainly in the lounge and area where the lounge went into the dining room. The landlord acknowledged that, in their Entry Report dated 30 July 2021 they noted historical marks on the flooring and carpet that showed wearing, tears and stains, including in the lounge. The owner provided two rugs for this tenant because of this. It was difficult to see the detail of any earlier staining in the Entry Report photographs to ascertain the extent of those stains at the start of the tenancy in the lounge area, though some stains could be ascertained in the lounge area at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord pointed to photographs in an Exit Report dated 1 December 2023, that showed stains on the carpet, particularly in the lounge area and the area between the lounge and dining room.
The tenant acknowledged that there was a drink stain on the lounge carpet caused by somebody spilling a drink at her son’s 2 nd birthday party. Given she had her L-shaped couch across a section of the lounge that overlapped with the area where further stains were alleged to have been caused, she said she could not say for certain whether her family caused any other carpet stains in the area between the lounge and dining room. She acknowledged though that that area was a busy thoroughfare during her family’s time at the property.
The tenant said she had paid for a professional cleaner to come and clean the carpets, after she did a [carpet] clean herself, but was not happy with the results. She felt that the professional cleaner, with their use of chemicals, had not improved the appearance of some areas with stains and felt that the darkness around some stains in Exit Report photographs could be due to the chemicals from this professional clean, as it was done on 29 November 2023 and the Exit Report was completed on 1 December 2023, only a couple of days difference.
Given the evidence as outlined above, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of any carpet staining caused by the tenant or her young children, except as that acknowledged by the tenant. This is especially so, given the Entry Report that notes wearing, tears and stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
However, the tenant has acknowledged there was some carpet staining caused by her family. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord said that the carpet is at least 24 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of a carpet in a rental property, especially in a living room area, is around 8-10 years. As such, I find that the carpet would have exceeded its lifespan by a significant period. However, I also accept that the carpet was nevertheless in a functional condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a couple of extra years left. On that basis and given the period by which the carpet would have exceeded its lifespan, I award the landlord 10% of the replacement cost of the carpet. The landlord provided a quote for replacing the carpet in the lounge, dining area and entryway in the amount of $2,470.00. Therefore, I award the landlord 10% of this replacement cost, which is $247.00, as the tenant’s contribution to the carpet replacement. Wallpaper
The landlord claimed the tenant had damaged the wallpaper in two of the bedrooms, on two different walls in each of those two bedrooms. The landlord provided photographs of this, where peeling of wallpaper was evident in two bedrooms. The landlord said the wallpaper could not be replaced, given its age. The landlord confirmed that in its Entry Report, it is noted that the wallpaper is separating in three of the bedrooms and there were small dents and marks in it, at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that her young son, under 2 years old, had peeled most of the wallpaper in the photographs and that the cot where her baby son slept had created some peeling in wallpaper also. Given that the wallpaper had been separating at the start of the tenancy, the tenant did not feel she should bear the entire cost of replacing the wallpaper.
Given the evidence, particularly that the tenant acknowledged her young son had peeled the wallpaper in several places, I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord said the wallpaper was also likely more than 24 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of wallpaper in a rental property is around 5-12 years. Thus, the wallpaper would have exceeded its lifespan by a significant period. However, I also accept that the wallpaper was nevertheless in a functional condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a couple of extra years left. On that basis and given the period by which the wallpaper would have exceeded its lifespan, I award the landlord 10% of the replacement cost for the wallpaper on the affected walls in the two affected bedrooms, as quoted by the landlord for $1,771.00, which is $177.10. Therefore, I award the landlord $177.10, as the tenant’s contribution towards the wallpaper replacement on the affected walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $424.10 [The tenant/s]: $1,575.90 Filing fee
Because both parties have had some success with their respective claims, I do not award any filing fee to either party. Suppression
Also, as both parties have had some success with their respective claims, both are entitled to name suppression, which was requested by both parties. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s and the landlord’s names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782481 — Property damage at 1 Willow Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782481 — Property damage at 1 Willow Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions