What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4813077?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Leonie Monk must pay Nicholas Bede Anderson $520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4813077?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813077?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413843-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4813077?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Leonie Monk must pay Nicholas Bede Anderson $520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4813077?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813077?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413843-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Church Road, Taradale, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4813077 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4813077 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement (insurance excess	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement (insurance excess
Lawns and garden work: labour	$500.00	Lawns and garden work: labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$520.44

Order

Sasha Leonie Monk must pay Nicholas Bede Anderson $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6050689-015) to Nicholas Bede Anderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The hearing was held by video conference. An initial hearing on 10 April 2024 was adjourned to allow consideration of evidence filed by the landlord but not able to be accessed through the link provided. The Applications
The landlord made the initial application on 20 February 2024.
In his application the landlord seeks compensation for carpet replacement, tidying of the grounds and replacement of plants.
The tenant then filed an application on 5 April 2024 asking that her bond be returned to her.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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.
That obligation extends to the condition in which the grounds are left at the end of the tenancy. The they should be returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
As noted on the Tenancy Services website: “Tenants responsibilities - Tenants must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. This includes mowing the lawns and weeding the gardens.” Landlords responsibilities - Landlords are usually responsible for pruning and maintaining trees, shrubs and hedges. If they are, they would normally remove the cuttings too. This minimises the risk of damage. Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them.”
The landlord has provided photographic evidence that shows that the lawns and gardens were lot left reasonably clean and tidy. There was dome dog excrement in the garden and they were not left tidy and reasonably free of weeds.
In his initial communication with the tenant after the final inspection, the landlord claimed $120.00 for weeding, garden tidy up and removal of waste. In his later application to the Tribunal $500.00 was claimed. There is no evidence of any third party expense incurred by the landlord in that regard.
Taking into account the landlord’s initial assessment of the work required, I find that 8 hours @ $30.00 per hour would represent reasonable compensation for the work required to bring the outside areas of the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as shown by the evidence provided.

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 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. Carpets
The landlord’s evidence is that on the final inspection staining and odours from pet urine were apparent. He arranged for the carpets to be professionally cleaned by an experienced and reputable company, JAE, at a cost of $325.00. He says that the carpet cleaner was unable to remove the stains and odours so an insurance claim was made.
The insurer accepted the claim and the carpets were replaced. The landlord was required to pay 4 x excess amounts of $500.00 each, for which he seeks compensation.
The tenant’s position is that the carpets were not stained or urinated on by her dogs during the tenancy, as they were house trained and were either in the kitchen on the lino behind a child gate or outside when the tenant was out. She says it is possible any such stains or odours pre-dated her tenancy.
I fully accept that the tenant was not aware of her dogs having damaged the carpet. The Tribunal is required to rely on the best evidence available in determining whether a claim for compensation is proved on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant considerations are: a. The agreement allowed the tenant to have 2 dogs living in the premises; b. The tenant is responsible for any damage done by the dogs; c. The length of time the carpet had been laid and the landlord’s evidence about occupation of the premises before this tenancy, persuade me that it is unlikely that any damage to the carpet occurred before this tenancy began in October 2020; d. Photographs show what appear to be stains on the carpet when the final inspection was undertaken; e. The landlord has given direct evidence of the extent of the urine smell as he experienced it; f. The landlord took the responsible step of trying to have the carpets cleaned before seeking replacement at the tenant’s cost; g. The landlord has given evidence that the carpet cleaning professional confirmed that the carpet treatment had not removed the urine odours, as well as his own experience of it; h. After assessment, the landlords insurer accepted the claim that the carpets required replacement.
Those considerations persuade me that it is more likely than not that the carpets were damaged by dog urine during the tenancy to the extent that the landlord was justified in having them replaced.
The landlord’s loss is the excess’ paid on the insurance claim and he is entitled to be compensated for that loss. Garden Plants
The landlord claims compensation for the loss of garden plants, being: tree replacement$1,321.00 rose replacement (3)$237.00
The landlord did not visit the premises at any time during the tenancy.
In my view it is not reasonable for the landlord to take no role in the care or inspection of fruit trees, shrubs and specimen plants for over 3 years and then claim the costs for their replacement at the end of the tenancy.
It is not possible for me to say whether the loss of those plants was caused by carelessness or negligence on the tenant’s part, extreme weather conditions beyond the tenant’s reasonable control or the natural life cycle of those species.
As noted in the extract from the Tenancy Services site above . “Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them.” The landlord cannot assume a tenant to have the ability to provide that care, skill or knowledge.
For those reasons I do not find the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacement plants proved.
The landlord has been substantially successful with his claim, and I reimburse the filing fee.
No application for suppression is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4813077 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement (insurance excess	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement (insurance excess
Lawns and garden work: labour	$500.00	Lawns and garden work: labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$520.44

Order

Sasha Leonie Monk must pay Nicholas Bede Anderson $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6050689-015) to Nicholas Bede Anderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The hearing was held by video conference. An initial hearing on 10 April 2024 was adjourned to allow consideration of evidence filed by the landlord but not able to be accessed through the link provided. The Applications
The landlord made the initial application on 20 February 2024.
In his application the landlord seeks compensation for carpet replacement, tidying of the grounds and replacement of plants.
The tenant then filed an application on 5 April 2024 asking that her bond be returned to her.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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.
That obligation extends to the condition in which the grounds are left at the end of the tenancy. The they should be returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
As noted on the Tenancy Services website: “Tenants responsibilities - Tenants must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. This includes mowing the lawns and weeding the gardens.” Landlords responsibilities - Landlords are usually responsible for pruning and maintaining trees, shrubs and hedges. If they are, they would normally remove the cuttings too. This minimises the risk of damage. Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them.”
The landlord has provided photographic evidence that shows that the lawns and gardens were lot left reasonably clean and tidy. There was dome dog excrement in the garden and they were not left tidy and reasonably free of weeds.
In his initial communication with the tenant after the final inspection, the landlord claimed $120.00 for weeding, garden tidy up and removal of waste. In his later application to the Tribunal $500.00 was claimed. There is no evidence of any third party expense incurred by the landlord in that regard.
Taking into account the landlord’s initial assessment of the work required, I find that 8 hours @ $30.00 per hour would represent reasonable compensation for the work required to bring the outside areas of the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as shown by the evidence provided.

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 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. Carpets
The landlord’s evidence is that on the final inspection staining and odours from pet urine were apparent. He arranged for the carpets to be professionally cleaned by an experienced and reputable company, JAE, at a cost of $325.00. He says that the carpet cleaner was unable to remove the stains and odours so an insurance claim was made.
The insurer accepted the claim and the carpets were replaced. The landlord was required to pay 4 x excess amounts of $500.00 each, for which he seeks compensation.
The tenant’s position is that the carpets were not stained or urinated on by her dogs during the tenancy, as they were house trained and were either in the kitchen on the lino behind a child gate or outside when the tenant was out. She says it is possible any such stains or odours pre-dated her tenancy.
I fully accept that the tenant was not aware of her dogs having damaged the carpet. The Tribunal is required to rely on the best evidence available in determining whether a claim for compensation is proved on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant considerations are: a. The agreement allowed the tenant to have 2 dogs living in the premises; b. The tenant is responsible for any damage done by the dogs; c. The length of time the carpet had been laid and the landlord’s evidence about occupation of the premises before this tenancy, persuade me that it is unlikely that any damage to the carpet occurred before this tenancy began in October 2020; d. Photographs show what appear to be stains on the carpet when the final inspection was undertaken; e. The landlord has given direct evidence of the extent of the urine smell as he experienced it; f. The landlord took the responsible step of trying to have the carpets cleaned before seeking replacement at the tenant’s cost; g. The landlord has given evidence that the carpet cleaning professional confirmed that the carpet treatment had not removed the urine odours, as well as his own experience of it; h. After assessment, the landlords insurer accepted the claim that the carpets required replacement.
Those considerations persuade me that it is more likely than not that the carpets were damaged by dog urine during the tenancy to the extent that the landlord was justified in having them replaced.
The landlord’s loss is the excess’ paid on the insurance claim and he is entitled to be compensated for that loss. Garden Plants
The landlord claims compensation for the loss of garden plants, being: tree replacement$1,321.00 rose replacement (3)$237.00
The landlord did not visit the premises at any time during the tenancy.
In my view it is not reasonable for the landlord to take no role in the care or inspection of fruit trees, shrubs and specimen plants for over 3 years and then claim the costs for their replacement at the end of the tenancy.
It is not possible for me to say whether the loss of those plants was caused by carelessness or negligence on the tenant’s part, extreme weather conditions beyond the tenant’s reasonable control or the natural life cycle of those species.
As noted in the extract from the Tenancy Services site above . “Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them.” The landlord cannot assume a tenant to have the ability to provide that care, skill or knowledge.
For those reasons I do not find the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacement plants proved.
The landlord has been substantially successful with his claim, and I reimburse the filing fee.
No application for suppression is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813077 — Property damage at 17 Church Road, Taradale, Napier 4112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813077 — Property damage at 17 Church Road, Taradale, Napier 4112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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