What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011094 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5011094?

Carpet - Devaluation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011094?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011094 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5011094?

Carpet - Devaluation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011094?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

279B Tancred Street, Ashburton, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011094 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011094 — net $1,120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet - devaluation	$200.00	Carpet - devaluation
Wall repairs	$3,000.00	Wall repairs
Net award	$1,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants must immediately pay $1,120.00 to the landlord.
The Bond Centre must immediately pay the bond of $2080.00 to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One of the tenant’s represented the other at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
The landlord makes a claim under this heading seeking $1538.00 as the depreciated cost for replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 3 and repairing the carpet in the stairway.
The landlord also makes a claim for $5738.00 which is the quoted cost of repairing and repainting the walls in the kitchen/living area, the stairwell, hallway and bedrooms 1, 2 and 3.
I shall take each of these claims in turn. Carpet
It was acknowledged that the carpets were in brand new condition at the beginning of the tenancy and that during the tenancy a small stain occurred in bedroom 1, 2 small stains occurred in bedroom 3 and a small blue pen mark occurred in the stairway.
At today’s hearing I explained that although I consider the tenants are responsible for this damage because they were likely caused by carelessness, I do not consider it reasonable that they pay the full cost of replacing the carpets in the bedroom or the repair of the carpet in the stairway. The cost of the replacement of the carpet is out of proportion to the damage that occurred.
Rather, the more appropriate way of dealing with these kinds of more minor damages is for the tenants to pay an amount that can be considered the amount that the carpet has been devalued because of the stains.
It is difficult to assess the devaluation of the carpet because in fact the landlord has rented out the premises at the same rate, indicating that the stains have not resulted in having to rent the premises at a lesser rate.
Nevertheless, the tenants have carelessly caused these small stains and ought to pay an amount because of that. I have put that amount as being $200.00. Wall damage
The photographs show that during the tenancy the walls have been damaged in almost every room.
Having considered all the photographs I consider that some of this damage is fair wear and tear which the tenant ought not to have to pay for.
However, there is also some significant gouging which needs repair, and damage such as scribbles which needs to be painted over.
In concluding that the tenants ought to pay $3,000.00 towards the repair and repainting of the walls, I have considered that some of the damage is fair wear and tear and I have also taken depreciation into account. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was successful in a substantial part of the claim. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and I am allowing that application pursuant to s95(A)(3).
I am also allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of their names pursuant to s95(A)(1) because I consider that they genuinely and correctly disputed the amounts claimed. I also note that the landlord supported the tenants’ application for suppression. C ter Haar 16 January 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011094 — net $1,120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet - devaluation	$200.00	Carpet - devaluation
Wall repairs	$3,000.00	Wall repairs
Net award	$1,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants must immediately pay $1,120.00 to the landlord.
The Bond Centre must immediately pay the bond of $2080.00 to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. One of the tenant’s represented the other at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
The landlord makes a claim under this heading seeking $1538.00 as the depreciated cost for replacing the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 3 and repairing the carpet in the stairway.
The landlord also makes a claim for $5738.00 which is the quoted cost of repairing and repainting the walls in the kitchen/living area, the stairwell, hallway and bedrooms 1, 2 and 3.
I shall take each of these claims in turn. Carpet
It was acknowledged that the carpets were in brand new condition at the beginning of the tenancy and that during the tenancy a small stain occurred in bedroom 1, 2 small stains occurred in bedroom 3 and a small blue pen mark occurred in the stairway.
At today’s hearing I explained that although I consider the tenants are responsible for this damage because they were likely caused by carelessness, I do not consider it reasonable that they pay the full cost of replacing the carpets in the bedroom or the repair of the carpet in the stairway. The cost of the replacement of the carpet is out of proportion to the damage that occurred.
Rather, the more appropriate way of dealing with these kinds of more minor damages is for the tenants to pay an amount that can be considered the amount that the carpet has been devalued because of the stains.
It is difficult to assess the devaluation of the carpet because in fact the landlord has rented out the premises at the same rate, indicating that the stains have not resulted in having to rent the premises at a lesser rate.
Nevertheless, the tenants have carelessly caused these small stains and ought to pay an amount because of that. I have put that amount as being $200.00. Wall damage
The photographs show that during the tenancy the walls have been damaged in almost every room.
Having considered all the photographs I consider that some of this damage is fair wear and tear which the tenant ought not to have to pay for.
However, there is also some significant gouging which needs repair, and damage such as scribbles which needs to be painted over.
In concluding that the tenants ought to pay $3,000.00 towards the repair and repainting of the walls, I have considered that some of the damage is fair wear and tear and I have also taken depreciation into account. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was successful in a substantial part of the claim. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and I am allowing that application pursuant to s95(A)(3).
I am also allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of their names pursuant to s95(A)(1) because I consider that they genuinely and correctly disputed the amounts claimed. I also note that the landlord supported the tenants’ application for suppression. C ter Haar 16 January 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011094 — Property damage at 279B Tancred Street, Ashburton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011094 — Property damage at 279B Tancred Street, Ashburton, Ashburton 7700

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