What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962735 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4962735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962735?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962735 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4962735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962735?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

39 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962735 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets?

There is a claim for the insurance excess because of damage to the carpets throughout the house. Jae inspected the house twice and wrote two reports. The reports confirm there was pet urine in the carpets in a number of places, and a smell. Jae could not be certain when the carpets were damaged. They said the carpet was a wool carpet estimated to be 15 – 20 years old. The tenant replied that they did have two dogs in the house in breach of the tenancy agreement. She said they moved the dogs to a friend’s house after they were served a 14 day notice. She said the dogs never urinated on the carpet.

The 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved the claim. The Jae report states that the smell could have been activated by the tenants carrying out carpet cleaning at the end of their tenancy. This makes it hard for the landlord to prove the urine damage happened during the tenancy. The claim for the carpets is dismissed.

Even if the landlord could prove there was careless or intentional damage I would not have allowed the clam for compensation. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Given the age of the carpet and the worn condition at the start of the tenancy any order would mean the tenants paying for an improvement. Other orders

The bond will be refunded to the tenants.

The claim for exemplary damages was not considered because this is not available for a breach of a pet clause.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenants. This is because they are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets?

The bond will be refunded to the tenants.

The claim for exemplary damages was not considered because this is not available for a breach of a pet clause.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenants. This is because they are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962735 — 14-day notice at 39 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962735 — 14-day notice at 39 Ashwood Street, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions