What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072934?

The tribunal order states: Kauri Beach Limited must pay Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend,

How much money was awarded in case 5072934?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072934?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480196-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072934?

The tribunal order states: Kauri Beach Limited must pay Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend,

How much money was awarded in case 5072934?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072934?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480196-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40E Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072934 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5072934 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Kauri Beach Limited must pay Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend, Jaive Varly te ara King Harris and Sydney Trevor Brouwer $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6508871-001) to Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend, Jaive Varly te ara King Harris and Sydney Trevor Brouwer immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Oliver Cowley and Aaron Townend attended on behalf of the tenant.
The tenant filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.’ Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before the Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

DAMAGE

The law

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 has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 1
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for carelessly damaging the carpets in the bedrooms.
The tenant accepts that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy but claims it is fair wear and tear.
It is important to note that even though the tenant claims the damage is fair wear and tear, the tenant does not have to prove that this is the case. The onus of proving that the damage is not fair wear and tear rests with the landlord. 2 The landlord must first establish that this is the case before the Tribunal can consider whether the damage is careless or intentional. Evidence and submissions of the parties
This tenancy began on 24 October 2023 and ended on 24 October 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was newly built before the tenants moved in and the carpet was only 1 year old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenants each had rolling office chairs in their bedrooms, which caused the carpet to essentially flatten permanently.
The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in the bedrooms. A slight change in colour in some parts of the carpet is visible. This discolouration appears in a circular shape. The landlord claims this is where the carpet is permanently flattened as a result of the office chairs.
No photographs of the chairs were submitted however, the landlord likened the chairs to those present in the hearing room.
The landlord submitted an email from Pravin Patel, Retail Sales Manager at Crown Flooring Xtra. The email is lengthy, but relevantly states: 1 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 2 Nixon v Geal-Olter (216/94 North Shore District Court December 1995). Observed Damage and Causes: Permanent Fiber Compression and Flattening: The use of heavy- duty rolling office chairs has resulted in continuous compression and friction against the carpet fibres. Office chairs with wheels concentrate weight in specific areas of the carpet, causing the fibres to flatten and lose their original resilience. This concentrated, repetitive weight combined with rolling friction has created deep indentations and visible wear, which cannot be reversed by cleaning or regular maintenance.
The email goes on to conclude that the damage is “consistent with excessive wear and tear caused by heavy-duty office chair use on carpeted surfaces without protective mats.” I pause here to note that this is not a conclusion Mr Patel is qualified to make. Whether damage is the result of fair wear and tear or whether a tenant’s use of the premises has been reasonable is a legal question. The answer may be informed by a range of evidence, including expert evidence, but the analysis leading to the conclusion is a legal one.
The landlord claims they first noticed damage to the carpet during the first inspection, which occurred sometime in January 2024. The landlord states they told the tenant to use protective mats under the chairs during this inspection to stop any further damage. The landlord accepts that the tenants were using protective mats by the time of the second inspection in June 2024, but claims the damage had already been done by this point.
The landlord submits that the tenant’s failure to use protective mats from the beginning of the tenancy renders their use of the chairs in the bedrooms unreasonable.
The landlord submitted a quote to replace the carpet throughout the property for $3,878.00 (including GST). The landlord gave evidence that the carpet has been replaced for this amount. The landlord never received an invoice and claims that they paid out on the quote.
The tenant accepts that the carpet has flattened due to the use of office chairs in the bedrooms.
The tenant gave evidence that they began using protective mats under the chairs approximately five months into the tenancy. This was shortly after the first inspection when the request was made by the landlord.
The tenant gave evidence that three of them work away from the tenancy address and one works from home some days of the week.
The tenant gave evidence that they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $605.00. This was done to try to restore the structure of the carpet to its original condition, but did not work as well as they hoped.
The tenant claims that the carpet was not showing signs of damage at the first inspection in January 2024 and the landlord requested that they get protective mats because damage was “likely to occur” if they did not. Analysis
It is clear that the landlord prides themselves on being a good landlord who looks after the property and their tenants. They do not consider the property to simply be an investment. They are proud of it and care about the way it is presented to tenants. The landlord wanted the home to be aesthetically pleasing for future tenants, which is why they replaced the carpet. This is commendable and something the landlord should be proud. It remains the case however, that a tenant is not responsible for damage that is fair wear and tear, which I consider is the case here.
The damage to the carpet, as shown in the photographs, is not obvious or particularly significant. I cannot see the alleged damage in some of the photographs. This factor alone is not determinative, but it is something I can consider in the round.
The landlord accepts that the use of desks and chairs in residential bedrooms is most likely commonplace these days. I agree. We live in a technologically advanced time. It is hard to get by without a computer and it is not uncommon for people to work from home some days of the week. Relaxing by playing video games or watching television on a computer are also common past times. This all indicates that the tenant’s use of the premises by having a chair in their bedroom was reasonable.
I do not consider the fact that the tenant had office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats for the first 5 months of the tenancy renders their use of the premises unreasonable. Office chairs are widely available and easily purchased from a number of stores. They are often advertised as being suitable for the home and office. Although the email from Mr Patel refers to “heavy duty office chairs,” the evidence given at the hearing was that the chairs were like the ones in the hearing room. That is, they were standard office chairs.
The landlord submits that a tenant who uses an office chair in their bedroom should know to use a protective mat. Whilst it might be common knowledge for this landlord that repetitive use of a rolling office chair might permanently flatten residential carpet, I do not consider this is common knowledge amongst the general public. Once requested to use protective mats by the landlord, the tenant did.
For the above reasons, I find the tenant’s use of the premises by having rolling office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats to be reasonable. The flattening of the new carpet is a consequence of the ordinary operation of natural forces. The damage is fair wear and tear.

BOND

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord’s claim against the bond is dismissed. Therefore, I order the bond to be dispersed to the tenant in full.

FILING FEE

The tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5072934 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Kauri Beach Limited must pay Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend, Jaive Varly te ara King Harris and Sydney Trevor Brouwer $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6508871-001) to Oliver Samuel Cowley, Aaron James Townend, Jaive Varly te ara King Harris and Sydney Trevor Brouwer immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Oliver Cowley and Aaron Townend attended on behalf of the tenant.
The tenant filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.’ Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before the Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

DAMAGE

The law

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 has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 1
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for carelessly damaging the carpets in the bedrooms.
The tenant accepts that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy but claims it is fair wear and tear.
It is important to note that even though the tenant claims the damage is fair wear and tear, the tenant does not have to prove that this is the case. The onus of proving that the damage is not fair wear and tear rests with the landlord. 2 The landlord must first establish that this is the case before the Tribunal can consider whether the damage is careless or intentional. Evidence and submissions of the parties
This tenancy began on 24 October 2023 and ended on 24 October 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was newly built before the tenants moved in and the carpet was only 1 year old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenants each had rolling office chairs in their bedrooms, which caused the carpet to essentially flatten permanently.
The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in the bedrooms. A slight change in colour in some parts of the carpet is visible. This discolouration appears in a circular shape. The landlord claims this is where the carpet is permanently flattened as a result of the office chairs.
No photographs of the chairs were submitted however, the landlord likened the chairs to those present in the hearing room.
The landlord submitted an email from Pravin Patel, Retail Sales Manager at Crown Flooring Xtra. The email is lengthy, but relevantly states: 1 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 2 Nixon v Geal-Olter (216/94 North Shore District Court December 1995). Observed Damage and Causes: Permanent Fiber Compression and Flattening: The use of heavy- duty rolling office chairs has resulted in continuous compression and friction against the carpet fibres. Office chairs with wheels concentrate weight in specific areas of the carpet, causing the fibres to flatten and lose their original resilience. This concentrated, repetitive weight combined with rolling friction has created deep indentations and visible wear, which cannot be reversed by cleaning or regular maintenance.
The email goes on to conclude that the damage is “consistent with excessive wear and tear caused by heavy-duty office chair use on carpeted surfaces without protective mats.” I pause here to note that this is not a conclusion Mr Patel is qualified to make. Whether damage is the result of fair wear and tear or whether a tenant’s use of the premises has been reasonable is a legal question. The answer may be informed by a range of evidence, including expert evidence, but the analysis leading to the conclusion is a legal one.
The landlord claims they first noticed damage to the carpet during the first inspection, which occurred sometime in January 2024. The landlord states they told the tenant to use protective mats under the chairs during this inspection to stop any further damage. The landlord accepts that the tenants were using protective mats by the time of the second inspection in June 2024, but claims the damage had already been done by this point.
The landlord submits that the tenant’s failure to use protective mats from the beginning of the tenancy renders their use of the chairs in the bedrooms unreasonable.
The landlord submitted a quote to replace the carpet throughout the property for $3,878.00 (including GST). The landlord gave evidence that the carpet has been replaced for this amount. The landlord never received an invoice and claims that they paid out on the quote.
The tenant accepts that the carpet has flattened due to the use of office chairs in the bedrooms.
The tenant gave evidence that they began using protective mats under the chairs approximately five months into the tenancy. This was shortly after the first inspection when the request was made by the landlord.
The tenant gave evidence that three of them work away from the tenancy address and one works from home some days of the week.
The tenant gave evidence that they had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $605.00. This was done to try to restore the structure of the carpet to its original condition, but did not work as well as they hoped.
The tenant claims that the carpet was not showing signs of damage at the first inspection in January 2024 and the landlord requested that they get protective mats because damage was “likely to occur” if they did not. Analysis
It is clear that the landlord prides themselves on being a good landlord who looks after the property and their tenants. They do not consider the property to simply be an investment. They are proud of it and care about the way it is presented to tenants. The landlord wanted the home to be aesthetically pleasing for future tenants, which is why they replaced the carpet. This is commendable and something the landlord should be proud. It remains the case however, that a tenant is not responsible for damage that is fair wear and tear, which I consider is the case here.
The damage to the carpet, as shown in the photographs, is not obvious or particularly significant. I cannot see the alleged damage in some of the photographs. This factor alone is not determinative, but it is something I can consider in the round.
The landlord accepts that the use of desks and chairs in residential bedrooms is most likely commonplace these days. I agree. We live in a technologically advanced time. It is hard to get by without a computer and it is not uncommon for people to work from home some days of the week. Relaxing by playing video games or watching television on a computer are also common past times. This all indicates that the tenant’s use of the premises by having a chair in their bedroom was reasonable.
I do not consider the fact that the tenant had office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats for the first 5 months of the tenancy renders their use of the premises unreasonable. Office chairs are widely available and easily purchased from a number of stores. They are often advertised as being suitable for the home and office. Although the email from Mr Patel refers to “heavy duty office chairs,” the evidence given at the hearing was that the chairs were like the ones in the hearing room. That is, they were standard office chairs.
The landlord submits that a tenant who uses an office chair in their bedroom should know to use a protective mat. Whilst it might be common knowledge for this landlord that repetitive use of a rolling office chair might permanently flatten residential carpet, I do not consider this is common knowledge amongst the general public. Once requested to use protective mats by the landlord, the tenant did.
For the above reasons, I find the tenant’s use of the premises by having rolling office chairs in their bedrooms without protective mats to be reasonable. The flattening of the new carpet is a consequence of the ordinary operation of natural forces. The damage is fair wear and tear.

BOND

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord’s claim against the bond is dismissed. Therefore, I order the bond to be dispersed to the tenant in full.

FILING FEE

The tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072934 — Tenancy dispute at 40E Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072934 — Tenancy dispute at 40E Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions