What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4944273?

The tribunal order states: Khani Fox to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4944273?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,346.70 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944273?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10922930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4944273?

The tribunal order states: Khani Fox to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4944273?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,346.70 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944273?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10922930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Mawney Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4944273 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944273 — net $1,873.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$1,346.70	Repairs: walls
Replace carpet	$500.00	Replace carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,873.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,873.70

Order

Khani Fox to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Y. Wang $1,873.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord is required to prove each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show that the house was wallpapered and carpeted. No damage to the walls is depicted. Minor staining to the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 2 can be seen. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show significant damage to the walls. Large sections of wallpaper have been removed and the walls have been drawn on. The most significant damage appears to have occurred in the lounge. The photographs show an increase in the size and number of stains on the carpet in the lounge. I also note that the property was left in a very messy and dirty condition with a significant amount of rubbish.
The landlord stated that the tenant’s children removed the wallpaper and drew on the walls. The landlord attributed the stains on the carpet to yoghurt and a dog that the tenant was allowed to keep. The landlord said that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 was stained however, the photographs only show staining to the carpet in the lounge.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Wallpaper removed and walls drawn on b. Carpet stained in the lounge
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Wallpaper removed and walls drawn on – compensation for painting
The landlord provided an invoice which shows that the cost to paint the walls was $7,475.00. The landlord sought compensation of $1,346.70 from the tenant.
This is not the first time that the landlord has applied to the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy. On 12 December 2023, the Tribunal issued an order permitting the landlord to paint the inside of the property. The Tribunal limited the tenant’s liability to a maximum of $2,000.00. This was in recognition of the fact that the wallpaper was found to be at least 10 years old and painting the inside of the property would add capital value. Although the landlord should be returned to the same position as if the damage had not occurred, they should not be returned to a position where they are better off. I adopt the $2,000.00 limitation of liability that the Tribunal set for the tenant in the order dated 12 December 2023.
The bond of $1,960.00 has already been returned to the landlord and $613.30 has been credited towards the cost of painting. The landlord seeks an order for a further $1,346.70. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is granted. Stains to carpet – compensation for replacing old carpet with new carpet
The landlord produced an invoice for $3,540.50 to replace the carpet and sought compensation of $2,000.00 from the tenant.
The landlord has had all of the carpet in the property replaced however, they have only proven that the tenant damaged the carpet in the lounge. The tenant is responsible for repairing the carpet they damaged in the lounge. They are not responsible for the cost of replacing the carpet throughout the entire property.
The landlord accepted that the carpet was old and estimated its age to be the same as the wallpaper, namely 10 years. The Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide – IR 265 estimates the lifespan of carpet acquired after 1 April 2011 to be 8 years. The photographs taken of the property at the beginning of the tenancy show that the carpet in the lounge already had some minor staining.
Considering the age and state of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, as well as its likely useful lifespan and the fact that the landlord has only proven the tenant damaged the carpet in the lounge, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for an adjusted amount of $500.00. Replacing all of the carpet in the property with new carpet will increase its capital value. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, but they should not be unjustly enriched.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Y. Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944273 — net $1,873.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$1,346.70	Repairs: walls
Replace carpet	$500.00	Replace carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,873.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,873.70

Order

Khani Fox to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Y. Wang $1,873.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord is required to prove each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show that the house was wallpapered and carpeted. No damage to the walls is depicted. Minor staining to the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 2 can be seen. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show significant damage to the walls. Large sections of wallpaper have been removed and the walls have been drawn on. The most significant damage appears to have occurred in the lounge. The photographs show an increase in the size and number of stains on the carpet in the lounge. I also note that the property was left in a very messy and dirty condition with a significant amount of rubbish.
The landlord stated that the tenant’s children removed the wallpaper and drew on the walls. The landlord attributed the stains on the carpet to yoghurt and a dog that the tenant was allowed to keep. The landlord said that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 was stained however, the photographs only show staining to the carpet in the lounge.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Wallpaper removed and walls drawn on b. Carpet stained in the lounge
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Wallpaper removed and walls drawn on – compensation for painting
The landlord provided an invoice which shows that the cost to paint the walls was $7,475.00. The landlord sought compensation of $1,346.70 from the tenant.
This is not the first time that the landlord has applied to the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy. On 12 December 2023, the Tribunal issued an order permitting the landlord to paint the inside of the property. The Tribunal limited the tenant’s liability to a maximum of $2,000.00. This was in recognition of the fact that the wallpaper was found to be at least 10 years old and painting the inside of the property would add capital value. Although the landlord should be returned to the same position as if the damage had not occurred, they should not be returned to a position where they are better off. I adopt the $2,000.00 limitation of liability that the Tribunal set for the tenant in the order dated 12 December 2023.
The bond of $1,960.00 has already been returned to the landlord and $613.30 has been credited towards the cost of painting. The landlord seeks an order for a further $1,346.70. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is granted. Stains to carpet – compensation for replacing old carpet with new carpet
The landlord produced an invoice for $3,540.50 to replace the carpet and sought compensation of $2,000.00 from the tenant.
The landlord has had all of the carpet in the property replaced however, they have only proven that the tenant damaged the carpet in the lounge. The tenant is responsible for repairing the carpet they damaged in the lounge. They are not responsible for the cost of replacing the carpet throughout the entire property.
The landlord accepted that the carpet was old and estimated its age to be the same as the wallpaper, namely 10 years. The Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide – IR 265 estimates the lifespan of carpet acquired after 1 April 2011 to be 8 years. The photographs taken of the property at the beginning of the tenancy show that the carpet in the lounge already had some minor staining.
Considering the age and state of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, as well as its likely useful lifespan and the fact that the landlord has only proven the tenant damaged the carpet in the lounge, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for an adjusted amount of $500.00. Replacing all of the carpet in the property with new carpet will increase its capital value. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, but they should not be unjustly enriched.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For Y. Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944273 — Property damage at 12 Mawney Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944273 — Property damage at 12 Mawney Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions