What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935793?

The tribunal order states: Anau Paea I Latai Hateni and Sione Hateni to pay 360 Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4935793?

Property Damage: $970.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935793?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10933296-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935793?

The tribunal order states: Anau Paea I Latai Hateni and Sione Hateni to pay 360 Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4935793?

Property Damage: $970.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935793?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10933296-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Valencia Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935793 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935793 — net $970.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Tenant's contribution to carpet replacement	$970.69	Tenant's contribution to carpet replacement
Net award	$970.69
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$970.69

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935793 — net $970.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Tenant's contribution to carpet replacement	$970.69	Tenant's contribution to carpet replacement
Net award	$970.69
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$970.69

Order

Anau Paea I Latai Hateni and Sione Hateni to pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Nui Properties Limited $970.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5596835-007) immediately apportioned as follows: 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Nui Properties Limited: $970.69 Anau Paea I Latai Hateni and Sione Hateni: $2,029.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord filed a cross- application for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims for compensation are as follows: a. Carpet replacement:$1,712.06 b. Laundry vinyl replacement:$695.75 c. Pest control:$290.00
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant responsible for 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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403
When considering a claim for compensation for damage, the Tribunal has a discretion to award either the full cost of replacement or diminution in value. In determining what option to award, the overarching principle is one of reasonableness. 1
Relevant to an assessment of reasonableness, is the duty to mitigate one’s loss. This is contained in section 49 RTA, which states: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 1 Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the carpet in bedrooms 2, 3 and 5 and vinyl in the laundry with stains. The landlord sought compensation for the following amounts. a. Carpet replacement:$1,712.06 b. Laundry vinyl replacement:$695.75
The landlord replaced the entire carpet in bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and 5 for a total cost of $2,282.75. The landlord only sought compensation for replacing the carpet in bedrooms 2, 3 and 5 for a total cost of $1,712.06. Carpet
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains on the carpets. The landlord stated that the property was newly renovated and the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show some staining to the carpet.
Photograph 120 of the exit inspection report shows a red stain about the size of a hand palm in bedroom 2.
Photograph 121 shows a small white mark about the size of a fingertip in bedroom 2. This white mark appears hard and crusty, indicating that it is not the result of a spillage of liquid, but some other type of material that has dried up.
The landlord claimed that there was further red staining in bedroom 2 covering a large portion of the carpet on the bottom right-hand side and referred me to photographs 116, 117 and 118 of the exit inspection report. I do not consider these photographs show further red staining. These photographs are taken at a distance. The carpet is dark blue. No staining is apparent.
Photographs 153 and 154 of the exit inspection report show some small white marks on the carpet of bedroom 3. The landlord said that there were also small red circles on the carpet. Small red circles are not apparent in the photographs.
Photographs 155 and 156 show further staining to the carpet in bedroom 3. There are five stains that look like white circles. The largest appears to be about the size of an average person’s hand. The landlord stated that these stains looked like bleach marks, most likely incurred after a cleaning attempt by the tenant.
The landlord stated that there was staining to the carpet in bedroom 5 at the end of the hall and referred to photographs 177 and 192. There is a red mark on the carpet in photograph 177. Photograph 192 shows some very faint discolouration of the carpet. The carpet is dark blue, but appears a slightly dark red/purple colour in photograph 192.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I find that the following damage was sustained to the carpet during the tenancy: a. Red stain the size of a hand palm and one small white stain the size of a fingertip in bedroom 2. b. Small white marks in bedroom 3. c. White circular stains in bedroom 3. d. Red mark and very slight discolouration in a corner of bedroom 5.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted responsibility for the stains.
The landlord stated that they did not try to clean the carpet first to remove the stains, because some of the stains appeared to be dry matter such as, gum or glue. The stains that were this consistency were one small white stain in bedroom 2 and multiple small white marks in bedroom 5.
The landlord did not attempt to remedy the stained carpet by way of a patch repair. Instead, the entire carpet in bedrooms 2, 3 and 5 were replaced.
The thrust of the landlord’s submission as to why they replaced the entire carpet appeared to be because it was brand new before the tenancy began.
I have a choice between ordering the tenant to pay for the cost of replacing the carpet in bedrooms 2, 3 and 5 or ordering the tenant to pay a sum that fairly reflects the diminution in value sustained to the carpet as a result the tenant’s breach.
In this case, a reasonable step for the landlord to have taken to limit their loss, would have been to have the carpet professionally cleaned. This might have removed or reduced some of the staining. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that carpet cleaning was not possible, because the one small white dot in bedroom 2 and multiple small white dots in bedroom 3 were dry matter. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for carpet cleaning, many of which include the cleaning of dry matter stains. I also note that bedroom 5 did not have any dry matter stains.
The carpet in bedroom 3 was stained the worst. There were multiple white marks that covered a relatively large area. I accept that replacing the carpet in bedroom 3 was reasonable.
In contrast, the staining to the carpet in bedrooms 2 and 5 was not as extensive. Each room had a small red stain, which appeared to be about the size of a palm or hand. The carpet in bedroom 2 also had a very, very small white stain. The carpet in bedroom 5 had further, very slight discolouration in a small corner of the bedroom. I do not consider that the extent of this damage justified replacing the entire carpet. A deep clean and/or patch repair would have sufficed.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet is awarded for a total of $970.69. This figure represents the following: a. Replacement cost for carpet in bedroom 3. The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet replacement across four bedrooms. The total was $2,282.75. I have divided this figure by four to get the cost of replacing one bedroom, which is $570.59. b. Diminution in value to the carpet in bedrooms 2 and 5. I have awarded the landlord $200.00 per bedroom, which I think fairly reflects the diminution in value resultant of the damage. Vinyl
The landlord’s photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains on the vinyl in the laundry. The landlord’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a very slight yellow stain on the laundry vinyl and some small brown marks.
The tenant provided their own photograph of the vinyl in the laundry. No yellow staining or brown marks are apparent however, the tenant gave evidence that there was still a yellow stain apparent, but it was very, very faint. The tenant said that they kept a small chest freezer in the laundry, which caused the yellow staining and brown marks. The tenant said that they returned to the property to clean the vinyl after the tenancy ended. The tenant’s photograph post-dates the exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord.
The thrust of the landlord’s submission as to why the vinyl in the laundry was replaced in its entirety appeared to be because it was brand new before the tenancy beginning.
Based on the photographs provided and evidence of the parties, I accept that the laundry vinyl was damaged and suffered some minor yellow staining during the tenancy. I find that the damage was caused carelessly, rather than intentionally.
I do not consider it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the vinyl. After the tenant returned to clean the laundry, the stain was barely visible. I could not see it on the photograph provided by the tenant. I struggled to even see it in the photographs provided by the landlord. The damage was very minor and did not justify full replacement.
The landlord did not give evidence of any steps they took to try to mitigate the loss incurred with full replacement of the vinyl such as, having the stain buffed out by a professional.
In the circumstances, considering how minor the stain was and how difficult it is to see, I do not consider that it is appropriate to award compensation for full replacement or diminution in value. The landlord’s application for compensation to replace the vinyl in the laundry is dismissed. Compensation for pest control
The landlord claimed that the property had ants and rats in it. The landlord submitted photographs of under the sink, which showed some rat poo. The landlord also submitted photographs of the skirting, which showed some ants.
The landlord was unable to attribute the presence of rats or ants to any associated breach conduct by the tenant.
The tenant left the property in a very clean and tidy condition. Rats and ants were not attracted to the property because the tenant left the property in a poor state with food and rubbish.
The tenancy began on 8 July 2022 an ended on 10 July 2024. The landlord confirmed that the presence of rats or ants was never noted as an issue during inspections.
The tenant gave evidence that there was a drain at the property that was blocked. When it rained, the garage would sometimes accumulate water. This issue was reported to the landlord, but not remedied. If there were rats and ants present at the property, the tenant claimed that it was most likely due to the blocked drain.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for pest control is dismissed, as they have not proven that the loss incurred was a result of any breach committed by the tenant. Filing fee and suppression
Each party has been successful in their claim to some degree and therefore, I do not order than any party reimburse the other the cost of the filing fee.
The landlord’s written application indicated a claim for name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This sections requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord did not refer me to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted at the hearing and none are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935793 — Property damage at 16 Valencia Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935793 — Property damage at 16 Valencia Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for 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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions