What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022766?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong to pay Dunedin Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5022766?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022766?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022766?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022766?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong to pay Dunedin Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5022766?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022766?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022766?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Prosser Street, Green Island, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022766 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022766 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for 5 rooms at per room	$2,000.00	Insurance excess for 5 rooms at per room
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,027.00

Order

Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong to pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach $2,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5299836-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach: $2,027.00 Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong: $373.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 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 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.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged beyond being professional cleaned due to animal urine in the carpet in 5 rooms of the house that needed to be replaced and was replaced under an insurance claim; b. Dent in the hallway paint and scrap on door frame; c. Dent in baseboard in bedroom 1; d. Dent in baseboard in bedroom 3; and e. Curtain with ballpoint pen stain on lining that had to be replaced.
The tenants argued: a. They have a dog but there were at least two rooms in the house the dog never had access to; b. The owner’s husband has a dog and the owner lived in the house while the carpet was being installed, just prior to the tenants moving in and his dog could have made these stains; c. The probe used by the landlord’s carpet contractor would only pick up moisture in the underlay and not whether it was urine or simply damp floorboards as some of the floorboards are rotten and that means they are damp; d. They tried to wash the curtains at the end of the tenancy and there must have been a pen in the washing machine as the stains were on the curtain after it came out of the wash, and this was accidental damage rather than careless damage; e. The dents and scraps on the walls, door frames and base boards were far wear and tear after a two-year tenancy.
The landlord proved there had been some rotten floorboard that had been replaced and that these were as a result of bora and not dampness. The floor has been treated for bora as a result.
The landlord also claims that leaving a ball point pen in the washing machine causing damage to the curtain lining is a careless act and not accidental or fair wear and tear. It would have been avoidable with more due care being taken by the tenants.
The landlord also claims that the dents in the walls and scraps are more than fair wear and tear as there are dent in the plaster that are more likely than not caused by some careless act or omission by the tenants. The tenants did not explain how these dents occurred.
I find that the damage to the curtains is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not successfully disproved liability for the damage as the insurance company assessor and carpet removal contractors have confirmed the carpets were all damaged with pet urine that required the carpet to be replaced and the carpet was new and there was no evidence of stains or pet urine odour complained about at the start of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has provided quotes for the curtain lining replacement and the repair and repaint costs for the walls, door frame and base boards. The Tribunal does not accept quotes as proof of loss for compensation claims. Compensation is a mechanism that allows the Tribunal to reimburse the landlord for costs it has incurred and not costs it may incur if it decides to get the damage repaired. If the Tribunal awards compensation for losses that have not been incurred, landlords could make claims for repairs never done and pocket the money as a windfall. I dismiss the landlord’s claims for the curtain lining repair cost and paint and repair cost for lack of proof that these expenses have been incurred by the landlord.
The landlord is free to make a separate claim for these two costs once they have had the work done. It needs to consider the tenant’s fair wear and tear arguments before it does so, as these claims may not be accepted by the Tribunal as careless or intentional damage. In addition, the landlord disclosed at today’s hearing that it was primarily seeking the insurance excess for the carpet rather than these two additional costs, which may be why the owners have not ensured the property manager had proof of the repairs having been completed and paid for. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022766 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for 5 rooms at per room	$2,000.00	Insurance excess for 5 rooms at per room
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,027.00

Order

Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong to pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach $2,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5299836-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach: $2,027.00 Makayla Ashton and Lucy Armstrong: $373.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 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 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.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged beyond being professional cleaned due to animal urine in the carpet in 5 rooms of the house that needed to be replaced and was replaced under an insurance claim; b. Dent in the hallway paint and scrap on door frame; c. Dent in baseboard in bedroom 1; d. Dent in baseboard in bedroom 3; and e. Curtain with ballpoint pen stain on lining that had to be replaced.
The tenants argued: a. They have a dog but there were at least two rooms in the house the dog never had access to; b. The owner’s husband has a dog and the owner lived in the house while the carpet was being installed, just prior to the tenants moving in and his dog could have made these stains; c. The probe used by the landlord’s carpet contractor would only pick up moisture in the underlay and not whether it was urine or simply damp floorboards as some of the floorboards are rotten and that means they are damp; d. They tried to wash the curtains at the end of the tenancy and there must have been a pen in the washing machine as the stains were on the curtain after it came out of the wash, and this was accidental damage rather than careless damage; e. The dents and scraps on the walls, door frames and base boards were far wear and tear after a two-year tenancy.
The landlord proved there had been some rotten floorboard that had been replaced and that these were as a result of bora and not dampness. The floor has been treated for bora as a result.
The landlord also claims that leaving a ball point pen in the washing machine causing damage to the curtain lining is a careless act and not accidental or fair wear and tear. It would have been avoidable with more due care being taken by the tenants.
The landlord also claims that the dents in the walls and scraps are more than fair wear and tear as there are dent in the plaster that are more likely than not caused by some careless act or omission by the tenants. The tenants did not explain how these dents occurred.
I find that the damage to the curtains is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not successfully disproved liability for the damage as the insurance company assessor and carpet removal contractors have confirmed the carpets were all damaged with pet urine that required the carpet to be replaced and the carpet was new and there was no evidence of stains or pet urine odour complained about at the start of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has provided quotes for the curtain lining replacement and the repair and repaint costs for the walls, door frame and base boards. The Tribunal does not accept quotes as proof of loss for compensation claims. Compensation is a mechanism that allows the Tribunal to reimburse the landlord for costs it has incurred and not costs it may incur if it decides to get the damage repaired. If the Tribunal awards compensation for losses that have not been incurred, landlords could make claims for repairs never done and pocket the money as a windfall. I dismiss the landlord’s claims for the curtain lining repair cost and paint and repair cost for lack of proof that these expenses have been incurred by the landlord.
The landlord is free to make a separate claim for these two costs once they have had the work done. It needs to consider the tenant’s fair wear and tear arguments before it does so, as these claims may not be accepted by the Tribunal as careless or intentional damage. In addition, the landlord disclosed at today’s hearing that it was primarily seeking the insurance excess for the carpet rather than these two additional costs, which may be why the owners have not ensured the property manager had proof of the repairs having been completed and paid for. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited As Agent For T Loach has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022766 — Property damage at 13 Prosser Street, Green Island, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022766 — Property damage at 13 Prosser Street, Green Island, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants 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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions