How much money was awarded in case 4842742?

Bins And Courtyard: $203.44 awarded to landlord; Car Tow: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,435.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $696.00 awarded to landlord; Courtyard Pressure Wash: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $940.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,402.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $193.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,245.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,176.50 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail And Door Handles: $458.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842742?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4842742?

Bins And Courtyard: $203.44 awarded to landlord; Car Tow: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,435.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $696.00 awarded to landlord; Courtyard Pressure Wash: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $940.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,402.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $193.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,245.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,176.50 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail And Door Handles: $458.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842742?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842742 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842742 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842742 — net $9,880.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 March 2024	$1,245.72	Rent arrears to 2 March 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet damage	$4,402.98	Carpet damage
Rubbish removal	$1,176.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,435.20	Cleaning
Bins and courtyard	$203.44	Bins and courtyard
Courtyard pressure wash	$170.00	Courtyard pressure wash
Cleaning drapes	$696.00	Cleaning drapes
Fence repair	$178.97	Fence repair
Towel rail and door handles	$458.26	Towel rail and door handles
Car tow	$180.00	Car tow
Lock/key replacement	$193.00	Lock/key replacement
Loss of Rent	$940.00	Loss of Rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,880.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,880.51

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Laura Jane Morris and Waimana Turu must pay [The Landlord} immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The claim for exemplary damages for subletting is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing. The tenants did not attend.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent

The tenancy ended on 2 March 2024 by consent. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing when the tenancy ended as ordered. Claims for Cleaning, Rubbish Removal and Locks

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish included a car left at the premises.

The tenant did not return the keys.

The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs and invoices. Claims for Damage to the Premises

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

There was damage to the carpet, a fence, towel rail and door handle during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord produced photographs and invoices to prove the claims.

I find that the damage to the carpet was intentionally caused. Carpet throughout the premises was contaminated by urine, most likely from a dog that was in the premises towards the end of the tenancy. Professional carpet cleaning could not remove the odour from the carpet. There was also dog faeces on the carpet in places.

The extent of contamination was not consistent with accidental damage. For that degree of contamination there was most likely an indifference to the damage as it occurred or the dog was locked inside the premises alone, or a combination of the two. That constitutes intentional damage because the occupiers could have prevented the damage but allowed the situation to continue knowing that the damage was inevitable.

It follows that the landlord’s insurance cover is irrelevant. There is some doubt about whether there was cover in any case.

The cost of replacing the carpet was $5,503.73. The carpet was installed in May 2019 which means that it was nearly five years old by the time the tenancy ended. This is therefore a case where I must consider betterment.

There are several sources for estimating the likely lifespan of carpet. Obviously, it will depend on the quality of the carpet and the use of it. This was a good quality carpet, and it was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. I note that carpet in rental properties tends to suffer more wear than carpet in an owner- occupied home.

In my view it is reasonable to put the expected life of the carpet at 15 years. But a straight-line depreciation is not correct. The landlord has been put to the expense of the new carpet prematurely and that needs to be factored in. A deduction of 20% is appropriate for betterment and so I have awarded $4,402.98. Loss of Rent

The premises were relet on 5 July, over four months after the tenancy ended. The landlord carried out other work to the premises beyond the work required to remedy the tenants’ various breaches. The landlord said that the other work would not have been done if the premises had been returned in reasonable condition.

I accept that the work needed due to the tenants’ breaches took at least two weeks and that if that work had not been required, the premises would have been relet promptly after the tenancy ended. I have therefore awarded the landlord’s claimed two weeks lost rent. Subletting

The tenants shared occupation of the premises with another couple and their two children for a time and then the other couple and their children were left living in the premises for a relatively short time. But there was no evidence of the arrangement that they had with the tenants. It is likely that they contributed to the tenants’ outgoings in what was a house sharing situation. There was no evidence that the situation changed after the tenants stopped living in the premises.

It follows that I cannot be satisfied that there was a subletting and so the claim for exemplary damages for unlawful subletting must be dismissed. Filing Fee

The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842742 — net $9,880.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 March 2024	$1,245.72	Rent arrears to 2 March 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet damage	$4,402.98	Carpet damage
Rubbish removal	$1,176.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,435.20	Cleaning
Bins and courtyard	$203.44	Bins and courtyard
Courtyard pressure wash	$170.00	Courtyard pressure wash
Cleaning drapes	$696.00	Cleaning drapes
Fence repair	$178.97	Fence repair
Towel rail and door handles	$458.26	Towel rail and door handles
Car tow	$180.00	Car tow
Lock/key replacement	$193.00	Lock/key replacement
Loss of Rent	$940.00	Loss of Rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,880.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,880.51

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Laura Jane Morris and Waimana Turu must pay [The Landlord} immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for exemplary damages for subletting is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 2 March 2024 by consent. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing when the tenancy ended as ordered. Claims for Cleaning, Rubbish Removal and Locks
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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish included a car left at the premises.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs and invoices. Claims for Damage to the Premises
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
There was damage to the carpet, a fence, towel rail and door handle during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord produced photographs and invoices to prove the claims.
I find that the damage to the carpet was intentionally caused. Carpet throughout the premises was contaminated by urine, most likely from a dog that was in the premises towards the end of the tenancy. Professional carpet cleaning could not remove the odour from the carpet. There was also dog faeces on the carpet in places.
The extent of contamination was not consistent with accidental damage. For that degree of contamination there was most likely an indifference to the damage as it occurred or the dog was locked inside the premises alone, or a combination of the two. That constitutes intentional damage because the occupiers could have prevented the damage but allowed the situation to continue knowing that the damage was inevitable.
It follows that the landlord’s insurance cover is irrelevant. There is some doubt about whether there was cover in any case.
The cost of replacing the carpet was $5,503.73. The carpet was installed in May 2019 which means that it was nearly five years old by the time the tenancy ended. This is therefore a case where I must consider betterment.
There are several sources for estimating the likely lifespan of carpet. Obviously, it will depend on the quality of the carpet and the use of it. This was a good quality carpet, and it was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. I note that carpet in rental properties tends to suffer more wear than carpet in an owner- occupied home.
In my view it is reasonable to put the expected life of the carpet at 15 years. But a straight-line depreciation is not correct. The landlord has been put to the expense of the new carpet prematurely and that needs to be factored in. A deduction of 20% is appropriate for betterment and so I have awarded $4,402.98. Loss of Rent
The premises were relet on 5 July, over four months after the tenancy ended. The landlord carried out other work to the premises beyond the work required to remedy the tenants’ various breaches. The landlord said that the other work would not have been done if the premises had been returned in reasonable condition.
I accept that the work needed due to the tenants’ breaches took at least two weeks and that if that work had not been required, the premises would have been relet promptly after the tenancy ended. I have therefore awarded the landlord’s claimed two weeks lost rent. Subletting
The tenants shared occupation of the premises with another couple and their two children for a time and then the other couple and their children were left living in the premises for a relatively short time. But there was no evidence of the arrangement that they had with the tenants. It is likely that they contributed to the tenants’ outgoings in what was a house sharing situation. There was no evidence that the situation changed after the tenants stopped living in the premises.
It follows that I cannot be satisfied that there was a subletting and so the claim for exemplary damages for unlawful subletting must be dismissed. Filing Fee
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842742 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842742 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions