What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4871920 about?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Tyson to pay Heather Louise Marquet $900.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4871920?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Payments For Fire: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10709926-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4871920 about?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Tyson to pay Heather Louise Marquet $900.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4871920?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Payments For Fire: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10709926-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

177 White Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871920 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871920 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains	$500.00		Repairs: Curtains
Reimburse Payments for Fire		$100.00	Reimburse Payments for Fire
Repair & Maintenance - Fire		$1,000.00	Repair & Maintenance - Fire
Total award	$2,000.00	$1,100.00
Net award	$900.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871920 — net $900.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains	$500.00		Repairs: Curtains
Reimburse Payments for Fire		$100.00	Reimburse Payments for Fire
Repair & Maintenance - Fire		$1,000.00	Repair & Maintenance - Fire
Total award	$2,000.00	$1,100.00
Net award	$900.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$900.00

Order

Melissa Tyson to pay Heather Louise Marquet $900.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6415274-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Heather Louise Marquet: $900.00 Melissa Tyson: $1,260.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy and compensation. By the time of the hearing, the parties had agreed to end the tenancy with the tenant vacating the property on Friday, 16 August 2024. As such, I only considered the landlord’s monetary claims.
The tenant had applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages and work orders. As the tenancy was ending the following day, I did not consider the claims for work orders. Evidence & Onus of Proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place.
They must prove both: a. that the other party has breached its obligations; and b. the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)
In this decision I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Although not all of it was relevant to the claims made in the application forms.

Landlord Claims - Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

In its application, the landlord claimed $9,000 for replacement carpet throughout the dwelling, $500 for curtains and $2,400 for loss of rent while the work was carried out.
The amounts were amended at the hearing. The landlord had two alternative quotes for the replacement cost of carpet of $5,600 and $5,330 and sought the higher amount. The claim for replacement curtains was increased to $6,490 and the claim for loss of rent while work was done, reduced to $1,200.
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 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.
The landlord claims that carpet and curtains throughout the premises were damaged to such an extent they must be replaced. The landlord says the damage was caused by pets at the property and in particular, urine in the carpet and cats clawing the curtains.
The parties referred to me to reports from Chemdry regarding the carpet, quotes and comment from a carpet supplier. I also heard evidence regarding when the smell first occurred and the tenant’s use of a wet vacuum at the premises.
The evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that carpet damage occurred during this tenancy to the extent that replacement is required. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, the carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy, nor am I satisfied that it was in particularly good condition. An email from the Landlord’s carpet supplier notes that without the damage the carpet has “a few more years in it”. The evidence did not suggest that the carpet was in great condition at the start of the tenancy or had a long residual lifespan (without the damage). The tenant assessed the residual life of the carpet at 3 to 4 years.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I consider that the carpet may have had 25 to 30% of its lifespan left and award $1,500.00.
The landlord claimed the cost of curtain replacement throughout the dwelling but only provide photographs of two curtains. The tenant disputed that full curtain replacement is required. I am satisfied that there is cat clawing damage to a set of curtains in the living rooms which was caused during the tenancy. In the absence of corroborative evidence of the condition of other curtains in the property, I have awarded $500 as claimed in the application form, for the living room curtains.
The landlord also claimed loss of rent of $1,200 while repairs are carried out but provided no evidence to support such a claim. Tenant Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The requirement is to repair and maintain within a reasonable timeframe of being aware of the need for repair. The tenant also has an obligation to notify the landlord the need for repair.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to repair a leak in one bedroom for the duration of the tenancy. She says that her son, had to sleep in her room. She referred to a note for her doctor recording that the premises are damp. However, the doctor is simply repeating what it has been told by the tenant; it did not visit the premises.
The tenant did not establish when the leaking occurred, the extent of the issue following each or any rainfall. There was no evidence of the tenant following up with the landlord. There is evidence of two isolated incidents: one early and one late in the tenancy. The landlord engaged contractors both times and after the second leak, it was the landlord who followed up with the tenant regarding the effectiveness of the repair.
The landlord also provided a recent healthy homes assessment which did not raise any concerns with water ingress or damp.
The tenant did not establish its claim in relation to leaking or dampness at the premises.
The tenant also had claims relating to the fire at the property. The glass in the fire was damaged very early in the tenancy. The damage was reported to the landlord in May 2023, but it was not investigated or repaired until May 2024. The landlord sought payment from the tenant for the damage, or which $100 has been paid.
The evidence establishes that the damage was accidental or a maintenance issue. I accept the tenant’s description that the crack occurred in the normal use of the fire. As such the $100 paid by the tenant for repairs is to be refunded.
The tenant kept using the fire until recently, notwithstanding the damage because there was no other heating source in the living room. I find that the landlord has breached its obligations under s45 by failing to have the fire repaired promptly. At the very least, the landlord should have investigated the damage and arranged for a repair when the issue was reported in May 2023. I award the tenant $1,000 in loss of amenity for the period in which she did not use the fire.
I also considered whether to award exemplary damages but was not satisfied that the landlord’s breach was intentional but arose from a misunderstanding. I accept that, had she properly understood the issue, she would have addressed it promptly given the risk to the property and her insurance if the fire was defective.
The tenant also claimed that the fire had “expired” so that the heating source was invalid. If that is correct, the premises would not comply with the Healthy Homes Heating Standard. There is a plate on the back of the fire which refers to an expiry date of 9 March 2010. That date is within months of the fire being installed and receiving a Code Compliance Certificate. The landlord provided a copy of a healthy homes assessment which observed the fire and the “expiry” date recorded on it but confirmed that the fire complies with the heating standard.
The tenant could not explain the significance or purpose of the “expiry” reference on the fire. I understand that it relates to the manufacturers’ certification or accreditation to manufacture fires to this specification; rather than an expiry date for the fire itself. In any event, the tenant did not establish that it is more likely than not that the home does not comply with the Heathy Homes Heating Standard.
The claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord received the bond on 2 December 2022. 23 working days from that date is 12 January 2023 (see s2 RTA). The Bond was lodged on that day. The tenant has not established that the landlord committed an unlawful act. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Conduct of the Parties
Both parties complained about the behaviour and conduct of the other.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. There is no corresponding obligation on a tenant towards the landlord. 1
Breaching s38(2) RTA in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I have reviewed the correspondence between the parties and the oral evidence. There is nothing to suggest that the landlord has behaved inappropriately towards the tenant. Any claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The parties also raised issues with the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy. There was dispute and the evidence was not clear. There was no application before me for rent, so I have not made a finding. However, I record that the landlord indicated that there was a credit owing to the tenant. 1 A tenant must not interfere with the reasonable peace and quiet of others in the neighbourhood or the landlord’s other tenants but there is no obligation in the RTA requiring a tenant to behave in a certain way towards a landlord.
I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful, so have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee or granted suppression of either party’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871920 — Property damage at 177 White Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871920 — Property damage at 177 White Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Landlord Claims - 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

Landlord Claims - Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions