What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851067?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Mycock and Laura Smith are liable to pay Allen John Anderson and

How much money was awarded in case 4851067?

Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Varnishing Hallway: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851067?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851067?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Mycock and Laura Smith are liable to pay Allen John Anderson and

How much money was awarded in case 4851067?

Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Varnishing Hallway: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851067?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Lynn Street, Wakari, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4851067 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851067 — net $1,110.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$850.00	Carpet replacement
Curtain replacement	$50.00	Curtain replacement
Varnishing hallway	$210.00	Varnishing hallway
Net award	$1,110.00
Bond	$1,110.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,110.00

Order

Nathan Mycock and Laura Smith are liable to pay Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson $1,110.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson for further compensation is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,110.00 (3331412-003) to Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant wanted a refund of their bond from the periodic tenancy which began on 20/8/2016 and ended on 21/3/2024.
The landlord cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,000.00 as follows: a. $150.00 carpet cleaning b. $800.00 interior and exterior cleaning c. $50.00 for removing rotten fruit underneath the pear tree in the garden.
In support of their claim the landlord provided extensive evidence.
On the other hand, the tenant also provided extensive evidence, including written submissions, photographs and videos.
The tenant advised they had engaged a carpet cleaner and undertaken extensive cleaning inside and outside of the property with the help of friends.
Further the tenant submitted they had engaged a gardener to tidy the section before they left but he was unable to remove all the pears from underneath the tree due to wasps.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) only requires that the premises be left reasonably clean and tidy, and I consider the photographs and video evidence supports this was the case.
The Tribunal does not usually award compensation for both carpet cleaning and carpet replacement, especially in a situation where the tenant has also had the carpets cleaned.
The claim for compensation of $1,000.00 fails.

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.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,507.65 as follows: a. $1,607.65 indemnity value for carpet replacement b. $250.00 for a cracked garage window c. $500.00 for varnishing the hallway floor d. $100.00 for painting two window frames e. $50.00 for replacement curtains.
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive submissions, including photographs, a video, emails from various tradespeople and the initial property inspection report.
The landlord submitted that the tenants’ dog had soiled the carpet in the lounge and office to such an extent that it needed replacing. They considered the damage intentional.
Although the landlord had claimed on their insurance, they had only received what the insurance company believed was the indemnity value of $1,607.65.
While agreeing that their dog had had one or two episodes of soiling while ill, the tenant disputed the soiling had been to such an extent that the carpet needed replacing in two rooms.
The tenants highlighted that it was only in the last six weeks of their seven and a half year tenancy that the issue of a dog smell in the house had been raised.
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.
I am satisfied from the evidence, just, that damage was caused during the tenancy to carpets in two rooms, varnish in the hallway, two inside windowsills, curtains in the bedroom, and a window in the garage.
Awards have been made for replacement of curtains and hallway varnish as initially agreed to by the tenant.
For varnishing of the hallway floor, I have taken into account 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.
No award is made for the painting of window frames as I consider, after perusing the email, that the tenant completed the work he believed had been agreed to with the paint supplied by the landlord.
There is no persuasive evidence that the crack in the garage window was caused by the tenant, and the landlord has not incurred any cost because the window has not been repaired.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation for the carpet replacement for an amount that that takes the full award only to the value of the bond.
My reason for this is that I consider it is in the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties in what has been a long standing tenancy, to bring the matter to an end.
As the landlord was only partly successful with the application, I have declined to award the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression.
As the tenant was unsuccessful in their claim for refund of the bond name suppression is not available to them.
I have declined to exercise the discretion to suppress the name of the landlord as they were only partly successful, and no public interest is involved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851067 — net $1,110.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$850.00	Carpet replacement
Curtain replacement	$50.00	Curtain replacement
Varnishing hallway	$210.00	Varnishing hallway
Net award	$1,110.00
Bond	$1,110.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,110.00

Order

Nathan Mycock and Laura Smith are liable to pay Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson $1,110.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson for further compensation is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,110.00 (3331412-003) to Allen John Anderson and Cushla Anderson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant wanted a refund of their bond from the periodic tenancy which began on 20/8/2016 and ended on 21/3/2024.
The landlord cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,000.00 as follows: a. $150.00 carpet cleaning b. $800.00 interior and exterior cleaning c. $50.00 for removing rotten fruit underneath the pear tree in the garden.
In support of their claim the landlord provided extensive evidence.
On the other hand, the tenant also provided extensive evidence, including written submissions, photographs and videos.
The tenant advised they had engaged a carpet cleaner and undertaken extensive cleaning inside and outside of the property with the help of friends.
Further the tenant submitted they had engaged a gardener to tidy the section before they left but he was unable to remove all the pears from underneath the tree due to wasps.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) only requires that the premises be left reasonably clean and tidy, and I consider the photographs and video evidence supports this was the case.
The Tribunal does not usually award compensation for both carpet cleaning and carpet replacement, especially in a situation where the tenant has also had the carpets cleaned.
The claim for compensation of $1,000.00 fails.

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.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,507.65 as follows: a. $1,607.65 indemnity value for carpet replacement b. $250.00 for a cracked garage window c. $500.00 for varnishing the hallway floor d. $100.00 for painting two window frames e. $50.00 for replacement curtains.
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive submissions, including photographs, a video, emails from various tradespeople and the initial property inspection report.
The landlord submitted that the tenants’ dog had soiled the carpet in the lounge and office to such an extent that it needed replacing. They considered the damage intentional.
Although the landlord had claimed on their insurance, they had only received what the insurance company believed was the indemnity value of $1,607.65.
While agreeing that their dog had had one or two episodes of soiling while ill, the tenant disputed the soiling had been to such an extent that the carpet needed replacing in two rooms.
The tenants highlighted that it was only in the last six weeks of their seven and a half year tenancy that the issue of a dog smell in the house had been raised.
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.
I am satisfied from the evidence, just, that damage was caused during the tenancy to carpets in two rooms, varnish in the hallway, two inside windowsills, curtains in the bedroom, and a window in the garage.
Awards have been made for replacement of curtains and hallway varnish as initially agreed to by the tenant.
For varnishing of the hallway floor, I have taken into account 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.
No award is made for the painting of window frames as I consider, after perusing the email, that the tenant completed the work he believed had been agreed to with the paint supplied by the landlord.
There is no persuasive evidence that the crack in the garage window was caused by the tenant, and the landlord has not incurred any cost because the window has not been repaired.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation for the carpet replacement for an amount that that takes the full award only to the value of the bond.
My reason for this is that I consider it is in the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties in what has been a long standing tenancy, to bring the matter to an end.
As the landlord was only partly successful with the application, I have declined to award the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression.
As the tenant was unsuccessful in their claim for refund of the bond name suppression is not available to them.
I have declined to exercise the discretion to suppress the name of the landlord as they were only partly successful, and no public interest is involved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851067 — Property damage at 68 Lynn Street, Wakari, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851067 — Property damage at 68 Lynn Street, Wakari, Dunedin 9010

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

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

Frequently asked questions