What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966893?

The tribunal order states: Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini to pay Red Chili Property

How much money was awarded in case 4966893?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $480.31 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet contribu…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtain contrib…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $875.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11183007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966893?

The tribunal order states: Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini to pay Red Chili Property

How much money was awarded in case 4966893?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $480.31 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet contribu…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtain contrib…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $875.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11183007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

119 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966893 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966893 — net $2,432.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 July 2024	$480.31	Rent arrears to 15 July 2024
Water rates: Estimated	$875.08	Water rates: Estimated
Replace furnishings: Carpet contribution	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet contribution
Replace furnishings: Curtain contribution	$50.00	Replace furnishings: Curtain contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,432.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,432.39

Order

Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood $2,432.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,432.39 (6092606-017) to Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $287.61 (6092606-017) to Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini immediately.
The application for repairs to the bathroom floor and plastering and painting of lounge, family room and hallway walls, skirtings, doors and trims is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hedley attended on behalf of the tenants as their representative and presented much of the tenants’ evidence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants and their representative had gone to great lengths to present their defence to the claims. Some of the information provided was not necessary for this decision but I have carefully considered all of the material provided by both parties before making this order.
The tenants also wished to make a cross application in relation to separate matters.
The application was not filed with Tenancy Services prior to this hearing but the tenants are free to make an application to address those claims should they wish to do so.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which show that $480.31 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted responsibility for the arrears at the hearing and in written submissions.
The landlord provided an invoice for water rates in the sum of $1,020.50. This covered water to 7 August 2024.
After adjustment the amount owing to the end of the tenancy is calculated at $875.08 being $853.92 from 8 November 2023 to 30 June 2024 and $65.76 from 1 July 2024 to 15 July 2024 less the amount of $44.60 which was in credit in the account. (853.92+65.76-44.60 = $875.08).
The tenants disputed that they should be liable for this amount. They considered that they had no advance notice of the amount of water rates liability having only been invoiced in the amount of $44.60 on one occasion prior to receiving this large account.
They also said that they took good care of the large gardens including generous watering which they would not have done if they had understood the cost of water in the area.
Although I accept that the tenants were surprised by the quantum of the water bill, water is nevertheless the responsibility of the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (per claim) 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.
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.
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 following damage was allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Extensive damage to carpets throughout allegedly caused in large part by the tenants’ pets which were kept at the property with the landlord’s consent but pursuant to an agreement that any damage caused would be made good at the tenants’ expense. b. Damage to all window treatments at the property. c. Damage to walls, skirtings, doors and trims in the lounge, family room and hallway. d. Damage to the bathroom floor.
The landlord provided a quotation for replacement carpet throughout in the amount of $8,182.14. A successful insurance claim was made in respect of the carpet leaving an out-of-pocket cost for the landlord of $4,550.00 being seven excess amounts ($650.00 for each room recarpeted).
Evidence was provided that the quotation was accepted, and the carpet was replaced prior to the property being sold after the tenancy ended.
The tenants gave evidence (undisputed) that the property was 17 years old and the carpet was original. They said that the carpet was already stained when the tenancy began and that the previous tenants had also had a dog.
The tenants provided photographs taken in 2021 when the current owner purchased the property, and these showed that the carpet was a little tired at that time.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photographs which also showed that the carpet was not entirely unstained when the tenancy began.
However, the tenants also acknowledged by email to the landlord that their pets had been allowed to roam indoors while being looked after by a third party. They also acknowledged that they had discovered urine stains under a bed on moving out.
The tenants had made some efforts to remove the stains but had not been successful.
They pointed to a clause in the tenancy agreement which said that they would be given an opportunity to have the carpets professionally cleaned if the landlord found them below par at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had a professional carpet cleaner look at the stains when the tenancy ended, and the advice was that previous treatment had caused the carpet to fade further treatment may do the same given the carpet was wool.
The tenants disputed this advice and had contacted the carpet cleaning professional prior to the hearing. He had then provided a new letter of advice, still referring to pet stains and the possibility of permanent damage but also providing costs for cleaning. The reference to wool was removed.
The tenants said this was because they had told the professional that the carpet was in fact nylon, and he had accepted that he had not actually entered the property but had a staff member look at the stains. The implication of the updated advice is that the stains could possibly have been treated on nylon carpet.
Given the apparent flexibility of this advice, I can put little weight on this opinion.
It is possible, that, had the tenants had an opportunity to pay for a professional carpet clean, many of the stains may have come out.
This would have involved payment for a basic clean followed by individual stain treatments for each stain that could not be removed by general cleaning. Each of these individual stain treatments would have come at an additional cost.
There were multiple stains in each room and I consider that the cost of this may have been prohibitive. I also consider it very likely that not all of the stains could have been removed.
It is apparent from the photos that the stains were extensive with multiple areas of every room having bad staining and I consider that the tenants, or somebody else at the property with their permission, were careless in letting their animals urinate inside the premises on multiple occasions.
The landlord paid $598.00 for replacement window treatments throughout the property.
The tenants gave evidence that the kitchen blind was old and had fallen down during their tenancy. They had not tried to put it back up.
They accepted that there may have been some pet damage to curtains in one room.
The photographs provided show that the curtains are a little more stained than they were when the tenancy began. Most of the stains appear to be due to condensation but in one room there is clear damage or discolouration which looks to be caused by an animal.
The damage to the carpet throughout and to one curtain is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 estimated useful life span of carpet and curtains in a rental property is 8 years according to the Inland Revenue general depreciation information. The maximum life suggested for both is 25 years.
Give that the owner renovated and sold the property immediately after the tenancy ended, it may well be that they would have completed this work even if the additional damage due to this tenant had not occurred. Undoubtedly new carpet and curtains would have made the house more appealing to prospective buyers and payment of the amounts claimed in full would be an unfair windfall to the owner.
However, it is also true that the tenants allowed the damage to occur and should have some liability for that.
The amounts ordered have been estimated based of the items being at or near their end of their useful life and based on them being in average condition for their age at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered for contributions to carpet and curtain replacement costs are proved.
The applicant is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed $250.00 for damage to the bathroom floor. No evidence was provided to support this claim.
That claim is dismissed.
The landlord also presented a quotation for $4,830.00 for plastering and repainting a number of rooms.
The work has apparently been completed but no invoice was provided.
The ingoing report shows (in photographs) and acknowledges (in writing) a large number of screw and hooks throughout the interior. It also refers to some marks and damage to walls and other painted surfaces.
The outgoing report refers to additional similar damage.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that this is anything more than fair wear and tear or that these tenants caused the worst of this damage.
The claim for plastering and painting is dismissed.
As Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966893 — net $2,432.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 July 2024	$480.31	Rent arrears to 15 July 2024
Water rates: Estimated	$875.08	Water rates: Estimated
Replace furnishings: Carpet contribution	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet contribution
Replace furnishings: Curtain contribution	$50.00	Replace furnishings: Curtain contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,432.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,432.39

Order

Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood $2,432.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,432.39 (6092606-017) to Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $287.61 (6092606-017) to Rebecca Richardson and Olivia Susan Tuatini immediately.
The application for repairs to the bathroom floor and plastering and painting of lounge, family room and hallway walls, skirtings, doors and trims is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hedley attended on behalf of the tenants as their representative and presented much of the tenants’ evidence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants and their representative had gone to great lengths to present their defence to the claims. Some of the information provided was not necessary for this decision but I have carefully considered all of the material provided by both parties before making this order.
The tenants also wished to make a cross application in relation to separate matters.
The application was not filed with Tenancy Services prior to this hearing but the tenants are free to make an application to address those claims should they wish to do so.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which show that $480.31 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted responsibility for the arrears at the hearing and in written submissions.
The landlord provided an invoice for water rates in the sum of $1,020.50. This covered water to 7 August 2024.
After adjustment the amount owing to the end of the tenancy is calculated at $875.08 being $853.92 from 8 November 2023 to 30 June 2024 and $65.76 from 1 July 2024 to 15 July 2024 less the amount of $44.60 which was in credit in the account. (853.92+65.76-44.60 = $875.08).
The tenants disputed that they should be liable for this amount. They considered that they had no advance notice of the amount of water rates liability having only been invoiced in the amount of $44.60 on one occasion prior to receiving this large account.
They also said that they took good care of the large gardens including generous watering which they would not have done if they had understood the cost of water in the area.
Although I accept that the tenants were surprised by the quantum of the water bill, water is nevertheless the responsibility of the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (per claim) 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.
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.
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 following damage was allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Extensive damage to carpets throughout allegedly caused in large part by the tenants’ pets which were kept at the property with the landlord’s consent but pursuant to an agreement that any damage caused would be made good at the tenants’ expense. b. Damage to all window treatments at the property. c. Damage to walls, skirtings, doors and trims in the lounge, family room and hallway. d. Damage to the bathroom floor.
The landlord provided a quotation for replacement carpet throughout in the amount of $8,182.14. A successful insurance claim was made in respect of the carpet leaving an out-of-pocket cost for the landlord of $4,550.00 being seven excess amounts ($650.00 for each room recarpeted).
Evidence was provided that the quotation was accepted, and the carpet was replaced prior to the property being sold after the tenancy ended.
The tenants gave evidence (undisputed) that the property was 17 years old and the carpet was original. They said that the carpet was already stained when the tenancy began and that the previous tenants had also had a dog.
The tenants provided photographs taken in 2021 when the current owner purchased the property, and these showed that the carpet was a little tired at that time.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photographs which also showed that the carpet was not entirely unstained when the tenancy began.
However, the tenants also acknowledged by email to the landlord that their pets had been allowed to roam indoors while being looked after by a third party. They also acknowledged that they had discovered urine stains under a bed on moving out.
The tenants had made some efforts to remove the stains but had not been successful.
They pointed to a clause in the tenancy agreement which said that they would be given an opportunity to have the carpets professionally cleaned if the landlord found them below par at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had a professional carpet cleaner look at the stains when the tenancy ended, and the advice was that previous treatment had caused the carpet to fade further treatment may do the same given the carpet was wool.
The tenants disputed this advice and had contacted the carpet cleaning professional prior to the hearing. He had then provided a new letter of advice, still referring to pet stains and the possibility of permanent damage but also providing costs for cleaning. The reference to wool was removed.
The tenants said this was because they had told the professional that the carpet was in fact nylon, and he had accepted that he had not actually entered the property but had a staff member look at the stains. The implication of the updated advice is that the stains could possibly have been treated on nylon carpet.
Given the apparent flexibility of this advice, I can put little weight on this opinion.
It is possible, that, had the tenants had an opportunity to pay for a professional carpet clean, many of the stains may have come out.
This would have involved payment for a basic clean followed by individual stain treatments for each stain that could not be removed by general cleaning. Each of these individual stain treatments would have come at an additional cost.
There were multiple stains in each room and I consider that the cost of this may have been prohibitive. I also consider it very likely that not all of the stains could have been removed.
It is apparent from the photos that the stains were extensive with multiple areas of every room having bad staining and I consider that the tenants, or somebody else at the property with their permission, were careless in letting their animals urinate inside the premises on multiple occasions.
The landlord paid $598.00 for replacement window treatments throughout the property.
The tenants gave evidence that the kitchen blind was old and had fallen down during their tenancy. They had not tried to put it back up.
They accepted that there may have been some pet damage to curtains in one room.
The photographs provided show that the curtains are a little more stained than they were when the tenancy began. Most of the stains appear to be due to condensation but in one room there is clear damage or discolouration which looks to be caused by an animal.
The damage to the carpet throughout and to one curtain is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 estimated useful life span of carpet and curtains in a rental property is 8 years according to the Inland Revenue general depreciation information. The maximum life suggested for both is 25 years.
Give that the owner renovated and sold the property immediately after the tenancy ended, it may well be that they would have completed this work even if the additional damage due to this tenant had not occurred. Undoubtedly new carpet and curtains would have made the house more appealing to prospective buyers and payment of the amounts claimed in full would be an unfair windfall to the owner.
However, it is also true that the tenants allowed the damage to occur and should have some liability for that.
The amounts ordered have been estimated based of the items being at or near their end of their useful life and based on them being in average condition for their age at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered for contributions to carpet and curtain replacement costs are proved.
The applicant is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed $250.00 for damage to the bathroom floor. No evidence was provided to support this claim.
That claim is dismissed.
The landlord also presented a quotation for $4,830.00 for plastering and repainting a number of rooms.
The work has apparently been completed but no invoice was provided.
The ingoing report shows (in photographs) and acknowledges (in writing) a large number of screw and hooks throughout the interior. It also refers to some marks and damage to walls and other painted surfaces.
The outgoing report refers to additional similar damage.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that this is anything more than fair wear and tear or that these tenants caused the worst of this damage.
The claim for plastering and painting is dismissed.
As Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A: Ray White Lincoln As Agent For Bernard & Suzette Wood has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966893 — Rent arrears at 119 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966893 — Rent arrears at 119 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions