What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933177?

The tribunal order states: Gillian Ward must pay Keri Kent and Andrew Tolo $1,187.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4933177?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933177?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858256-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933177?

The tribunal order states: Gillian Ward must pay Keri Kent and Andrew Tolo $1,187.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4933177?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933177?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858256-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Jellicoe Place, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933177 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933177 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement carpet - depreciated	$1,700.00	Replacement carpet - depreciated
Repairs: to walls	$500.00	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,187.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,187.00

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant sent her apologies and asked if a written statement could be taken into account. It was considered in the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant had a subtenant in the house. She remains responsible to the landlord for any damage done by her subtenant.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 carpet

The landlord had a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and photos taken at the final inspection. I find there was damage to the carpet during the tenancy.

An insurance assessor for the landlord contacted Jae, who had cleaned the carpets for the tenant before the end of the tenancy. Jae stated that the carpet throughout the house was very dirty and was treated for stains, “which included drink spills, food stains, pet stains, urine stains, vomit and faeces”. The stains could not be removed, and the landlord said there was also a bad smell. The landlord paid for replacement carpet.

The tenant said the damage was careless and she was therefore only responsible for the lesser of the excess or four weeks rent. The landlord said the damage was intentional. I find the damage was intentional because there were many stains in most of the rooms. It seems most likely to me the tenant allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage was a certainty. This means the tenant is responsible for compensation in an amount which is not limited.

The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement carpet less an amount for wear and tear. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. This is because the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off.

I have allowed a depreciated amount for the carpet which is about 3/8 of the invoice. In calculating depreciation I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and a likely useful lifespan of eight years from the IR265. The walls

The landlord has proved the tenant damaged the walls during the tenancy. The invoice from the contractor is not helpful because it does not list the cost of

repairs. Instead of relying on this invoice I have allowed an amount for repairs based on my knowledge of similar clams and the photos provided by the landlord. Other matters

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The bond is refunded in full to the landlord.

The tenant should contact the landlord directly to set up the $35 weekly payments she offered in the submission.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933177 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement carpet - depreciated	$1,700.00	Replacement carpet - depreciated
Repairs: to walls	$500.00	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,187.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,187.00

Order

Gillian Ward must pay Keri Kent and Andrew Tolo $1,187.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 (3242273-012) to Keri Kent and Andrew Tolo immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant sent her apologies and asked if a written statement could be taken into account. It was considered in the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had a subtenant in the house. She remains responsible to the landlord for any damage done by her subtenant.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 carpet
The landlord had a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and photos taken at the final inspection. I find there was damage to the carpet during the tenancy.
An insurance assessor for the landlord contacted Jae, who had cleaned the carpets for the tenant before the end of the tenancy. Jae stated that the carpet throughout the house was very dirty and was treated for stains, “which included drink spills, food stains, pet stains, urine stains, vomit and faeces”. The stains could not be removed, and the landlord said there was also a bad smell. The landlord paid for replacement carpet.
The tenant said the damage was careless and she was therefore only responsible for the lesser of the excess or four weeks rent. The landlord said the damage was intentional. I find the damage was intentional because there were many stains in most of the rooms. It seems most likely to me the tenant allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage was a certainty. This means the tenant is responsible for compensation in an amount which is not limited.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement carpet less an amount for wear and tear. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. This is because the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
I have allowed a depreciated amount for the carpet which is about 3/8 of the invoice. In calculating depreciation I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and a likely useful lifespan of eight years from the IR265. The walls
The landlord has proved the tenant damaged the walls during the tenancy. The invoice from the contractor is not helpful because it does not list the cost of
repairs. Instead of relying on this invoice I have allowed an amount for repairs based on my knowledge of similar clams and the photos provided by the landlord. Other matters
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is refunded in full to the landlord.
The tenant should contact the landlord directly to set up the $35 weekly payments she offered in the submission.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933177 — Property damage at 4 Jellicoe Place, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933177 — Property damage at 4 Jellicoe Place, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions