What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4818718?

The tribunal order states: Ani Capper must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Patte Randal

How much money was awarded in case 4818718?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $234.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.10 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall And Bathroom Door: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Lounge And Bedroom: $931.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4818718?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4818718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327829-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4818718?

The tribunal order states: Ani Capper must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Patte Randal

How much money was awarded in case 4818718?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $234.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.10 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall And Bathroom Door: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Lounge And Bedroom: $931.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4818718?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4818718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327829-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 105 Nixon Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4818718 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4818718 — net $170.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$234.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$131.10	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: garage wall and bathroom door	$480.00	Repairs: garage wall and bathroom door
Replace carpet lounge and bedroom	$931.96	Replace carpet lounge and bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$170.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$170.00

Mr Berryman and Mr Gosai appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The tenancy commenced 22 May 2021 and ended on 03 January 2024, following the tenant’s notice. On 23 February 2024, the landlord filed a claim alleging the tenant’s failure to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, damage to the bathroom door and wall in the garage, damage to the carpet in the lounge and one of the bedrooms, and failure to return all of the keys.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The landlord is claiming general cleaning costs of $480.00, $172.50 to have the carpet professionally cleaned, and $131.00 for lock replacement and key cutting.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The property should be returned at least in the same state of cleanliness it was at the commencement. The reasonably clean and tidy standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, in particular inspection reports and photographs showing the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy.

The property is approximately 10 years old, comprising two bedrooms, kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, toilet / bathroom, and a garage which houses the laundry.

The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection and end of tenancy inspection report, both of which contain photographs. Where I am able to conduct a before and after objective assessment, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the shower door, bathroom floor, and areas of the kitchen bench, including the cook top in a reasonably clean condition. The red, yellow, glass recycling bins, and food scraps bin all had rubbish or food scraps left in them. Based on the evidence however, I am not satisfied that an award of the full amount claimed is warranted. I award half the amount sought, $234.00.

The landlord has produced photographs showing at least two areas of staining to the carpet in the bedroom, and four areas of staining in the lounge. I am satisfied that the staining has occurred during the tenancy. The agreement allowed the tenant to have a cat. The landlord has produced a letter from the carpet cleaner stating that the stains were more likely than not caused by animal urine, and further that the stains, and odour, were unable to be removed, ultimately requiring the replacement of the carpet in those two rooms. I am satisfied that the stains occurred during the tenancy and award the compensation as claimed.

The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the tenant gave back all of the keys that had been provided. The landlord has produced an email sent by the current tenant to the landlord dated 23 February 2024. In the email the current tenant states that at around 9.30am that morning they discovered that the tenant had entered the property without their permission. They state the door was locked and the tenant had used a key. The tenant stated that they were there to inspect the carpet, as they suspected that the landlord was making up the claim, and also enquired about a parcel that was due to be delivered at the address. It appears the unlawful entry was reported to police. The landlord states that the tenant did not return all keys associated with the property. Based on the evidence, this appears to be the case. The landlord states that in order to properly secure the property against further incursion, that they had the locked re barrelled and new keys cut. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for this cost and the amount claimed is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

As stated, professional cleaning of the carpet in the lounge and bedroom was unable to remove the stains, and perhaps more importantly the odour. The evidence from the carpet cleaner is that the urine had soaked through to the underlay causing permanent damage. The landlord has produced an invoice for replacing the carpet in the lounge and bedroom only dated 22 January 2024 for $1,863.92.

The landlord has produced evidence sufficient to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to the bathroom door, which has been partially repaired, and a wall in the garage with a gouge. The landlord has produced an invoice for $480.00 to repair the damage.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet is more likely than not the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance with an excess of $250.00 per claim. However, insurance does not cover damage caused by animals kept at the property. As stated, where the damage is careless and not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). The rent in this case is $370.00 per week, with four weeks rent totalling $1,480.00. I must also consider betterment and depreciation. In this case the carpet was about 10 years old at the commencement of the tenancy, and in good condition. Carpet in rental properties has a useful lifespan of around 10 – 12 years. Taking these factors into account I reduce the amount claimed by 50% and award the landlord $931.36 toward the cost of replacing the carpet.

Dealing with the damage to the bathroom door, and the wall in the garage, I am satisfied that this occurred during the tenancy and is likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed is less that the combined insurance excess ad is awarded in full. Costs

Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Patte Randal has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Although the landlord has been substantially successful and is entitled to do so they do not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4818718 — net $170.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$234.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$131.10	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: garage wall and bathroom door	$480.00	Repairs: garage wall and bathroom door
Replace carpet lounge and bedroom	$931.96	Replace carpet lounge and bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$170.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$170.00

Mr Berryman and Mr Gosai appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

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

The landlord is claiming general cleaning costs of $480.00, $172.50 to have the carpet professionally cleaned, and $131.00 for lock replacement and key cutting.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The property is approximately 10 years old, comprising two bedrooms, kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, toilet / bathroom, and a garage which houses the laundry.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has produced evidence sufficient to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Patte Randal has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Although the landlord has been substantially successful and is entitled to do so they do not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4818718 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 105 Nixon Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4818718 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 105 Nixon Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions