What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933339?

The tribunal order states: Kaysha Anne Bowler to pay For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari $349.55 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4933339?

Cleaning: $5.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $354.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10773509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933339?

The tribunal order states: Kaysha Anne Bowler to pay For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari $349.55 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4933339?

Cleaning: $5.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $354.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10773509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

721 Cowper Road, Dannevirke, RD 6, Dannevirke 4976 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933339 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933339 — net $349.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement	$354.55		Carpet replacement
Compensation: Cleaning products		$5.00	Cleaning products
Total award	$354.55	$5.00
Net award	$349.55
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$349.55

Order

Kaysha Anne Bowler to pay For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari $349.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6502128-010) immediately apportioned as follows: For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari: $349.55 Kaysha Anne Bowler: $1,150.45

Reasons

Both parties attended this teleconference hearing on 30 August 2024.
The tenant has applied for release of the bond, unlawful entry by the landlord, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Unlawful entry
Kaysha Anne Bowler claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the tenancy ended on 6 July 2024.
On Thursday 4 July 2024, the tenant said that she returned to the premises at approximately midday. She found cleaning products that had been in a cupboard were on the kitchen bench. Next to the products were used gloves and a cloth. The tenant said that she could smell cleaning chemicals.
The tenant says that the landlord was not authorised to enter and had accordingly done so unlawfully.
The landlord refers to a string of txt messages between the landlord and the tenant on Wednesday 3 July 2024. In those messages, the landlord says that he wishes to come to the premises to complete a viewing with a prospective new tenant. The tenant responded that she would see the landlord there (meaning the premises).
The landlord says that he did use the tenant cleaning products on 3 July 2024 when he was authorised to be at the premises by the tenant.
I consider that it is more likely than not that the tenant has consented to the landlord being present and the claim for unlawful entry is dismissed.
The landlord accepts that the tenant’s cleaning products were used. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $5.00 for the products used.

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 is insured. The landlord policy of insurance carries an excess on each and every claim of $1,150.00.
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 carpet on the lounge was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said that her partner was unwell with Covid and had unfortunately vomited on the carpet. The tenant contacted a carpet cleaner and they were unable to remove the stain. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The carpet was at least 10 years old. The tenant provided photos taken at the commencement of the tenancy showing areas of damage to the carpet and areas where the carpet was threadbare which would be commensurate with a carpet of this age in a tenanted property.
The tenant provided a statement from Manawatu Carpet Cleaners confirming that the carpet was worn and threadbare in some places. The carpets looked to be over 10 years old with the usual wear and tear that can be expected. The carpet had damage from carpet beetles in some areas.
The invoice for replacement carpet in the lounge only was for $3,545.52.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The IRD schedules for carpet depreciation in residential tenancies indicates that the carpet would have had very limited value after 10 years. 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $354.55.
Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful. In those circumstances no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful the applications for suppression are dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933339 — net $349.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement	$354.55		Carpet replacement
Compensation: Cleaning products		$5.00	Cleaning products
Total award	$354.55	$5.00
Net award	$349.55
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$349.55

Order

Kaysha Anne Bowler to pay For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari $349.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6502128-010) immediately apportioned as follows: For Homes (Nz) Limited Shari: $349.55 Kaysha Anne Bowler: $1,150.45

Reasons

Both parties attended this teleconference hearing on 30 August 2024.
The tenant has applied for release of the bond, unlawful entry by the landlord, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Unlawful entry
Kaysha Anne Bowler claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the tenancy ended on 6 July 2024.
On Thursday 4 July 2024, the tenant said that she returned to the premises at approximately midday. She found cleaning products that had been in a cupboard were on the kitchen bench. Next to the products were used gloves and a cloth. The tenant said that she could smell cleaning chemicals.
The tenant says that the landlord was not authorised to enter and had accordingly done so unlawfully.
The landlord refers to a string of txt messages between the landlord and the tenant on Wednesday 3 July 2024. In those messages, the landlord says that he wishes to come to the premises to complete a viewing with a prospective new tenant. The tenant responded that she would see the landlord there (meaning the premises).
The landlord says that he did use the tenant cleaning products on 3 July 2024 when he was authorised to be at the premises by the tenant.
I consider that it is more likely than not that the tenant has consented to the landlord being present and the claim for unlawful entry is dismissed.
The landlord accepts that the tenant’s cleaning products were used. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $5.00 for the products used.

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 is insured. The landlord policy of insurance carries an excess on each and every claim of $1,150.00.
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 carpet on the lounge was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant said that her partner was unwell with Covid and had unfortunately vomited on the carpet. The tenant contacted a carpet cleaner and they were unable to remove the stain. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The carpet was at least 10 years old. The tenant provided photos taken at the commencement of the tenancy showing areas of damage to the carpet and areas where the carpet was threadbare which would be commensurate with a carpet of this age in a tenanted property.
The tenant provided a statement from Manawatu Carpet Cleaners confirming that the carpet was worn and threadbare in some places. The carpets looked to be over 10 years old with the usual wear and tear that can be expected. The carpet had damage from carpet beetles in some areas.
The invoice for replacement carpet in the lounge only was for $3,545.52.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The IRD schedules for carpet depreciation in residential tenancies indicates that the carpet would have had very limited value after 10 years. 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $354.55.
Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful. In those circumstances no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful the applications for suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933339 — Property damage at 721 Cowper Road, Dannevirke, RD 6, Dannevirke 4976

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933339 — Property damage at 721 Cowper Road, Dannevirke, RD 6, Dannevirke 4976

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions