What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970673 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] have both sought suppression and I have

How much money was awarded in case 4970673?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,625.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970673?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970673 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] have both sought suppression and I have

How much money was awarded in case 4970673?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,625.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970673?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970673 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970673 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bath repair (insurance excess	$650.00	Bath repair (insurance excess
Carpet repair (contribution to insurance excesses	$1,625.00	Carpet repair (contribution to insurance excesses
Net award	$75.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] have both sought suppression and I have supressed the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $75.00 immediately, as calculated in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The dispute arises in respect of alleged damage to the property and in particular damage to the carpet and bath following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has sought a total payment of $3,900.00 from the tenant.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and disputes the compensation being claimed against them by the landlord. The landlord has made a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond.
The tenancy commenced in June 2020 and ended in July 2024. The property was about eight months old at the start of the tenancy. The weekly rent during the tenancy was $635.00.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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. Damage to the carpet
The landlord claims that the tenant has left marks on the carpet throughout the property. They claim that there are children’s drawings (or marks as a result of children drawing), red marks and other marks throughout, including in the hallway, all bedrooms and in the living room/dining. Photographs have been provided of various carpet marks throughout the property.
The landlord says that they were unable to repair the carpet, due to the colour no longer being available and instead have been required to replace all the carpet.
The landlord has sought insurance; however, every room is considered a new event by the insurance company, and the landlord is claiming multiple insurance excesses totalling $3,250.00.
The tenant does not dispute that there are marks on the carpet but claims that the marks are fair wear and tear, and to be expected in a tenancy of four years. They submit that being required to cover the excesses for new carpet is excessive. They accept that the children marked the carpet, but that they hired a professional cleaner to try and remedy the stain(s). Overall, they say that they left the property in a very tidy and clean condition, and it is simply unfair that they are being asked to cover this amount.
As discussed at the hearing, the property is not required to be put back in a new condition or the exact condition as at the start of the tenancy. What requires assessment, as set out above, is whether the damage caused is more than fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the red marks on the carpet and the damage in one of the bedrooms caused by the children is more than fair wear and tear and is likely careless.
However, I don’t believe all marks on the carpet fall into this category. Some of the marks, are in my view, the result of fair wear and tear that would be expected at the end of the four-year tenancy.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant is responsible for half of the costs claimed for the damage to the carpet, being $1,625.00. This amount reflects the carpet marks that are more than fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved. Bath damage
The landlord claims that there has been a permanent mark made to the inside of the bath. Photographs provided clearly show a dark orange mark near the sink hole of the bath.
The landlord describes this as a raised burn like mark and claims that it was unable to be restored or repaired, and instead required replacement. A single insurance excess is sought for the replacement of $650.00.
The tenant is not sure how the mark was made and suggested it may have been something the children were playing with. They dispute that it resembles a burn mark and instead described it as a stain. The tenant does not think they should be responsible for the cost of a new bathtub as the stain does not affect the use of the bathtub.
I am however, satisfied that there was a burn mark or stain on the inside of the bath, and it is more than fair wear and tear, and likely careless.
As a result, the tenant is liable to pay the insurance excess of $650.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: some carpet damage and bathtub damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage as ordered.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party.
Both parties have applied for name suppression in their applications. Similarly, as both parties have had some success I have ordered name suppression of both parties. See section 95A(4) of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 05 December 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970673 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bath repair (insurance excess	$650.00	Bath repair (insurance excess
Carpet repair (contribution to insurance excesses	$1,625.00	Carpet repair (contribution to insurance excesses
Net award	$75.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] have both sought suppression and I have supressed the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $75.00 immediately, as calculated in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The dispute arises in respect of alleged damage to the property and in particular damage to the carpet and bath following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has sought a total payment of $3,900.00 from the tenant.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and disputes the compensation being claimed against them by the landlord. The landlord has made a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond.
The tenancy commenced in June 2020 and ended in July 2024. The property was about eight months old at the start of the tenancy. The weekly rent during the tenancy was $635.00.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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. Damage to the carpet
The landlord claims that the tenant has left marks on the carpet throughout the property. They claim that there are children’s drawings (or marks as a result of children drawing), red marks and other marks throughout, including in the hallway, all bedrooms and in the living room/dining. Photographs have been provided of various carpet marks throughout the property.
The landlord says that they were unable to repair the carpet, due to the colour no longer being available and instead have been required to replace all the carpet.
The landlord has sought insurance; however, every room is considered a new event by the insurance company, and the landlord is claiming multiple insurance excesses totalling $3,250.00.
The tenant does not dispute that there are marks on the carpet but claims that the marks are fair wear and tear, and to be expected in a tenancy of four years. They submit that being required to cover the excesses for new carpet is excessive. They accept that the children marked the carpet, but that they hired a professional cleaner to try and remedy the stain(s). Overall, they say that they left the property in a very tidy and clean condition, and it is simply unfair that they are being asked to cover this amount.
As discussed at the hearing, the property is not required to be put back in a new condition or the exact condition as at the start of the tenancy. What requires assessment, as set out above, is whether the damage caused is more than fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the red marks on the carpet and the damage in one of the bedrooms caused by the children is more than fair wear and tear and is likely careless.
However, I don’t believe all marks on the carpet fall into this category. Some of the marks, are in my view, the result of fair wear and tear that would be expected at the end of the four-year tenancy.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant is responsible for half of the costs claimed for the damage to the carpet, being $1,625.00. This amount reflects the carpet marks that are more than fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved. Bath damage
The landlord claims that there has been a permanent mark made to the inside of the bath. Photographs provided clearly show a dark orange mark near the sink hole of the bath.
The landlord describes this as a raised burn like mark and claims that it was unable to be restored or repaired, and instead required replacement. A single insurance excess is sought for the replacement of $650.00.
The tenant is not sure how the mark was made and suggested it may have been something the children were playing with. They dispute that it resembles a burn mark and instead described it as a stain. The tenant does not think they should be responsible for the cost of a new bathtub as the stain does not affect the use of the bathtub.
I am however, satisfied that there was a burn mark or stain on the inside of the bath, and it is more than fair wear and tear, and likely careless.
As a result, the tenant is liable to pay the insurance excess of $650.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Summary
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: some carpet damage and bathtub damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage as ordered.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party.
Both parties have applied for name suppression in their applications. Similarly, as both parties have had some success I have ordered name suppression of both parties. See section 95A(4) of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 05 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970673 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970673 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions