What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056048 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The tenant/s] to pay Steph Cameron $737.00 from the bond, in

How much money was awarded in case 5056048?

Consent Order Award: $737.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056048?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11515276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056048 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The tenant/s] to pay Steph Cameron $737.00 from the bond, in

How much money was awarded in case 5056048?

Consent Order Award: $737.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056048?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11515276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Karamu Place, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056048 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056048 — net $737.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Consent order award	$737.00	Consent order award
Net award	$737.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$737.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056048 — net $737.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Consent order award	$737.00	Consent order award
Net award	$737.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$737.00

Order

By consent, [The tenant/s] to pay Steph Cameron $737.00 from the bond, in reimbursement of the carpet cleaning cost.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Steph Cameron: $737.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,343.00
All other claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the identifying details of the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely.
The landlord is claiming costs to clean ($160) and replace ($550) the carpet which the tenant disputes.
Ms Cameron’s submission is that there were a number of stains (approximately eight) throughout the master bedroom, wardrobe and ensuite from hair dye. The carpet had been new (as was the house) at the commencement of the tenancy.
She contracted [Cleaning Service] to clean the carpet and their report stated: Treated stains, possible hair dye and cleaned carpet in walk-in wardrobe & bedroom. Stain treatment is unsuccessful.
They recommended replacement which Ms Cameron arranged. She now seeks reimbursement of the costs she incurred.
[The tenant/s] accepts the marks but says they were not caused intentionally. She rented the home for two years and it is agreed was otherwise a good tenant. She accepts liability for the carpet cleaning however does not think it reasonable she should pay for the replacement given the very small size of the stains. One she explains is in the master bedroom and was approximately the size of a date, the others were more pea sized. She says there were only about three or four marks which were not readily apparent.
As [The tenant/s] accepts the costs of attempted cleaning, I direct that amount to be deduced from the bond in favour of Ms Cameron. I turn then to the claim for the insurance excess. The law and discussion
The relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The RTA states that in order to be successful in such a claim, 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.
Fair wear and tear is the expected toll taken on a house that comes from usual living. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as carpets are concerned, it would be expected there may be some minor markings after residence for a two-year period. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA. Its usual meaning is a lack of attention, care, or precaution that an ordinary, careful person would take.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege.
Accordingly, it is for Ms Cameron to establish that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The only photos provided in the claim are three from the carpet cleaning company. Only one round stain can be seen in the photos, and it is relatively small; I agree with [The tenant/s] submission it appears the size of a date. The other stains are not apparent in the photos although I accept they were there from the oral evidence.
Having considered the evidence carefully, I do not find it established that damage in excess of fair wear and tear has been proven. There were some small stains in the carpet, but they are not readily apparent. Only one can be seen in photos and what can be seen would not appear to have negatively impacted the rental price that could be obtained. The need for replacement accordingly is not justified in evidence. A landlord cannot expect a new carpet to remain in such a condition after it has been rented out for two years.
Therefore, the claim for reimbursement of the insurance excess is dismissed.
Because Steph Cameron was not wholly nor substantially successful with the claim, I decline to reimburse the filing fee. 1
Because [The tenant/s] was successful in defending the majority of the claim, I direct that her identifying details be suppressed from the published order. 2

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056048 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Karamu Place, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056048 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Karamu Place, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions