What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4806561 about?

The tribunal order states: Jane Sherning Warren to pay [The landlord/s] $262.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4806561?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $194.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806561?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10470171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4806561 about?

The tribunal order states: Jane Sherning Warren to pay [The landlord/s] $262.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4806561?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $194.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806561?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10470171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

85 Heaphy Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4806561 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806561 — net $262.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.1.24	$194.29	Rent arrears to 13.1.24
Water rates	$47.27	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$262.00
Bond	$2,004.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$262.00

Order

Jane Sherning Warren to pay [The landlord/s] $262.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,004.17 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $262.00 Jane Sherning Warren: $1,742.17

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by counsel.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute the amounts claimed.
The amounts ordered for rent and water are proved.

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.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish her respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that she must establish that what she is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The tenant’s representative also submitted documentation in response, including affidavits and references. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s cat damaged the carpet.
The landlord was present during the carpet removal process and witnessed the wetness on the carpet.
The landlord attended the tenancy address on 14, 15 and 16 January 2024. The landlord says that she observed the wet carpet on the 15th and 16th of January. She says the carpet was dry and lifted the carpet up due to previous leak complaints.
The landlord says that when the carpet was in place there was no pet smell. It was not until the carpet was lifted that the urine smell was evident. The landlord further stated during the hearing that the white crystal on top of the underlay is a sign of pet urine salt. The landlord suggested that this cannot be water damage.
The landlord has been managing the property for the past 4 years. The carpet is the same carpet since the time they took over as property managers. There is no evidence of the age and condition of the carpet other than the landlord’s estimate. The landlord says that fresh stains are usually light yellow and the older stains usually darker colour. The tenant complained on numerous occasions about the wet carpet. The landlord sent a trades person around to dry the carpet.
The tenant says that the trades person was James the handyman. He came round and dried the corner of the living room. The first time he dried the carpet with a commercial drier. The second time the handy man lifted a corner of the carpet and put the drier on to it.
The tenant submits that the landlord’s claims are speculation. She says that the salt concentration could be mould. An email from the landlord on 16 January stating that the property was left tidy.
The tenant further states that she does not believe that stains of this size would be from a cat.
The landlord says that the tenant’s cat is large. She also says that the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. She says that this is far more than fair wear and tear.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord, along with the oral evidence taken at the hearing, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat.
The landlord has not provided expert opinion of whether this damage is from a cat. I have considered the small number of photographs of the damaged carpet provided by the landlord. I also note that the landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the carpet taken at the start of the tenancy which shows the condition of the carpet.
The landlord did provide a tax invoice from Champs Maintenance dated 25 May 2023. The invoice notes several attendances by the handyman in a response to complaints by the tenant of wet carpet. On 17 May 2023 the handyman reported that he “pulled up the carpet, dried out the affected area and refitted on 19 May. Examined the windows, French door and the ceiling and walls around. No signs of leak were found”.
On 22 May 2023 the handyman attended and further reported that “no excessive water was found, no signs of leak. Pulled up the carpet again, no sign of mould, thoroughly dried out the affected area and refitted on 23 May. Applied putty to some parts of the window where the tenant suspected the rainwater might be coming in”.
There was no indication or suggestion from the handyman during the attendances on 17 May and 22 May 2023 that the wet carpet was the direct result of cat urine.
I have also considered the comments provided by the tenant’s father in his affidavit dated 12 June 2024.
I find that if the damage was caused by the tenant’s cat as alleged by the landlord then it is incomprehensible that no one detected a smell of urine at critical inspection times. It is widely accepted that cat wee is strong and pungent and easily detected. The fact that a handyman was there on more than one occasion and did not record findings of cat urine beggars belief. On the balance of probabilities, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for carpet damage and flexiBin compensation is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806561 — net $262.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.1.24	$194.29	Rent arrears to 13.1.24
Water rates	$47.27	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$262.00
Bond	$2,004.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$262.00

Order

Jane Sherning Warren to pay [The landlord/s] $262.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,004.17 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $262.00 Jane Sherning Warren: $1,742.17

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by counsel.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute the amounts claimed.
The amounts ordered for rent and water are proved.

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.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish her respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that she must establish that what she is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The tenant’s representative also submitted documentation in response, including affidavits and references. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s cat damaged the carpet.
The landlord was present during the carpet removal process and witnessed the wetness on the carpet.
The landlord attended the tenancy address on 14, 15 and 16 January 2024. The landlord says that she observed the wet carpet on the 15th and 16th of January. She says the carpet was dry and lifted the carpet up due to previous leak complaints.
The landlord says that when the carpet was in place there was no pet smell. It was not until the carpet was lifted that the urine smell was evident. The landlord further stated during the hearing that the white crystal on top of the underlay is a sign of pet urine salt. The landlord suggested that this cannot be water damage.
The landlord has been managing the property for the past 4 years. The carpet is the same carpet since the time they took over as property managers. There is no evidence of the age and condition of the carpet other than the landlord’s estimate. The landlord says that fresh stains are usually light yellow and the older stains usually darker colour. The tenant complained on numerous occasions about the wet carpet. The landlord sent a trades person around to dry the carpet.
The tenant says that the trades person was James the handyman. He came round and dried the corner of the living room. The first time he dried the carpet with a commercial drier. The second time the handy man lifted a corner of the carpet and put the drier on to it.
The tenant submits that the landlord’s claims are speculation. She says that the salt concentration could be mould. An email from the landlord on 16 January stating that the property was left tidy.
The tenant further states that she does not believe that stains of this size would be from a cat.
The landlord says that the tenant’s cat is large. She also says that the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. She says that this is far more than fair wear and tear.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord, along with the oral evidence taken at the hearing, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat.
The landlord has not provided expert opinion of whether this damage is from a cat. I have considered the small number of photographs of the damaged carpet provided by the landlord. I also note that the landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the carpet taken at the start of the tenancy which shows the condition of the carpet.
The landlord did provide a tax invoice from Champs Maintenance dated 25 May 2023. The invoice notes several attendances by the handyman in a response to complaints by the tenant of wet carpet. On 17 May 2023 the handyman reported that he “pulled up the carpet, dried out the affected area and refitted on 19 May. Examined the windows, French door and the ceiling and walls around. No signs of leak were found”.
On 22 May 2023 the handyman attended and further reported that “no excessive water was found, no signs of leak. Pulled up the carpet again, no sign of mould, thoroughly dried out the affected area and refitted on 23 May. Applied putty to some parts of the window where the tenant suspected the rainwater might be coming in”.
There was no indication or suggestion from the handyman during the attendances on 17 May and 22 May 2023 that the wet carpet was the direct result of cat urine.
I have also considered the comments provided by the tenant’s father in his affidavit dated 12 June 2024.
I find that if the damage was caused by the tenant’s cat as alleged by the landlord then it is incomprehensible that no one detected a smell of urine at critical inspection times. It is widely accepted that cat wee is strong and pungent and easily detected. The fact that a handyman was there on more than one occasion and did not record findings of cat urine beggars belief. On the balance of probabilities, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for carpet damage and flexiBin compensation is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806561 — Rent arrears at 85 Heaphy Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806561 — Rent arrears at 85 Heaphy Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions