What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089629 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 5089629?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,562.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11517435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089629 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 5089629?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,562.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11517435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089629 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089629 — net $1,589.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Replacement	$1,562.50	Carpet Replacement
Reimbursement of the Landlord’s filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of the Landlord’s filing fee
Net award	$1,589.50
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s name and all identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,589.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,589.50 [The tenant/s]: $530.50
The tenants’ claim is dismissed.

Reasons

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing but [Tenant 2] did not attend. [The landlord’s representatives], representing the landlord, also attended.
The application from the tenants was made in the name of [Tenant 1] only. The landlord’s cross application named both tenants as respondents. [Tenant 1] said [Tenant 2] was aware of the hearing and of both the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s claim.
The claim and the counter claim concern damage to carpet that occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim is for a full refund of the bond.
The landlord’s written application was for $2,000.00 being two insurance excesses of $1,000.00 each. The landlord reduced its claim to $1,562.50 at the hearing to allow for depreciation and betterment.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenancy commenced on 6 January 2023 with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 3] as joint tenants. The premises was newly built and the tenants were the first tenants to live in the property. In October 2023 [Tenant 3] advised the property manager that she wanted to move out. By this time the relationship between the tenants had broken down. The landlord agreed to a replacement tenant on the basis [Tenant 3] paid for carpet cleaning costs to remove marks and stains on the carpet in her bedroom (including burn marks) and the lounge (including a mark caused as a result of [Tenant 3]’s pot plant being on the carpet), and costs incurred by the landlord to replace her with another tenant. The landlord agreed to [Tenant 2] as the replacement tenant, and a variation of the tenancy agreement was completed and signed by all parties.
The changeover of tenants was not an easy process as the original tenants were not communicating with each other which left the landlord in the unenviable position of being the go-between and having to act as a mediator.
The landlord contracted a cleaner to clean (hot wash) the stains and marks on the carpet; the cost was paid for by [Tenant 3]. As it turns out the carpet cleaning did not remove the stains/marks. However it appears that neither the tenants or the cleaner advised the landlord the carpet was not remedied. When [Tenant 2] moved into [Tenant 3]’s ex-bedroom, she placed rugs over the marks in the bedroom. Rugs were also placed over the stains and marks in the lounge. Accordingly the landlord did not see the damage during inspections, and only became aware the damage still existed after the tenancy ended on 4 October 2024.
[Tenant 1] disputes she or [Tenant 2] have any liability as: •the landlord only had a hot wash of the carpet done when [Tenant 3] moved out, where as a ‘full’ carpet clean may have removed the stains. •she paid [Tenant 3] her half of the bond ($1,000.00) when she left which was before the variation was signed, and [Tenant 2] paid her share of the bond before the variation was signed. [Tenant 1] understand from the property manager that the bond had to be sorted out between them before the variation was signed. However the carpet was not cleaned until after the variation was signed and [Tenant 3] had been paid her share of the bond. •The current bond is a bond paid by herself and [Tenant 2]. •Neither she nor [Tenant 2] caused the stains and [Tenant 1] does not believe they have any liability, including that the bond should not be used for the cost to remedy the carpet as [Tenant 3] caused the problem.
However the terms of the variation signed by all three tenants, and that this is a joint tenancy are significant in determining whether [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] have any liability.
The variation to the tenancy agreement states under the heading Liability: The remaining (including any new tenants that have joined), tenants acknowledge that they are jointly and severely bound in liability to the landlord and they assume liability for the rented property’s condition and through the report detailing it’s entry condition and any current condition and for all covenants contained in the existing tenancy agreement. All parties agree that the leaving/outgoing tenants are only released from liability after all parties have signed this document and the leaving/departing tenants have permanently vacated the premises.
The effect of this term is that [Tenant 3] no longer has liability to the landlord for the stained and marked carpet, and that [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] have liability for the condition of the carpet. They are joint tenants and therefore, as explained below, are both liable for the cost to remedy the damage done to the carpet.
Tenants who enter into a tenancy together are jointly and severally liable. That means that all tenants are equally responsible or liable (even without personal fault) for carrying out the full terms of the contract. If any obligations are breached, such as damage to the premises occurring during the tenancy, then each tenant is jointly liable with the other tenant/s as well as being separately liable for the breach. Simply put, the landlord may sue just one tenant in relation to the breach or all the tenants, as all the tenants are fully responsible for any breach.
In terms of the bond [Tenant 1] paid to [Tenant 3], I am satisfied that [Tenant 1] could have waited until after the carpet was cleaned before making a payment, and could have refused to refund the bond to [Tenant 3] until the issue was totally sorted out. I am persuaded the reason the landlord discussed payment of the bond in association with replacing [Tenant 3] as a tenant was because the tenants were not communicating with each other.
In addition, [Tenant 1] could have told the landlord the stains were still in the carpet after the cleaning. Had she done that it would be expected that the landlord would have attempted further cleaning at that point and if that was not successful discussed options of remedy with both [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 1]. As the stains and marks were then covered over the landlord was not able to see they were still there until the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I find the damage has probably been carelessly caused.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s insurer has accepted the landlord’s claim to replace the damaged carpet. As set out above the landlord originally claimed two excesses of $1,000 but reduced the sum claimed to $1,562.50 to take into account betterment and depreciation. In doing so the landlord has considered the carpet has a life span of 8 years and that the carpet was 1 year 9 months old at the end of this tenancy. The replacement carpet is exactly the same as the carpet being replaced. I accept the reduced sum claimed reasonably allows for betterment and depreciation and is awarded. Other matters
As the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim and I must award the filing fee.
The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published or any other identifying details of the previous tenant or the property.
This decision determines liability between the tenants and the landlord. It does not determine liability between the tenants and does not prevent a claim being filed in the Disputes Tribunal to determine liability between the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089629 — net $1,589.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Replacement	$1,562.50	Carpet Replacement
Reimbursement of the Landlord’s filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of the Landlord’s filing fee
Net award	$1,589.50
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s name and all identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,589.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,589.50 [The tenant/s]: $530.50
The tenants’ claim is dismissed.

Reasons

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing but [Tenant 2] did not attend. [The landlord’s representatives], representing the landlord, also attended.
The application from the tenants was made in the name of [Tenant 1] only. The landlord’s cross application named both tenants as respondents. [Tenant 1] said [Tenant 2] was aware of the hearing and of both the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s claim.
The claim and the counter claim concern damage to carpet that occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim is for a full refund of the bond.
The landlord’s written application was for $2,000.00 being two insurance excesses of $1,000.00 each. The landlord reduced its claim to $1,562.50 at the hearing to allow for depreciation and betterment.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenancy commenced on 6 January 2023 with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 3] as joint tenants. The premises was newly built and the tenants were the first tenants to live in the property. In October 2023 [Tenant 3] advised the property manager that she wanted to move out. By this time the relationship between the tenants had broken down. The landlord agreed to a replacement tenant on the basis [Tenant 3] paid for carpet cleaning costs to remove marks and stains on the carpet in her bedroom (including burn marks) and the lounge (including a mark caused as a result of [Tenant 3]’s pot plant being on the carpet), and costs incurred by the landlord to replace her with another tenant. The landlord agreed to [Tenant 2] as the replacement tenant, and a variation of the tenancy agreement was completed and signed by all parties.
The changeover of tenants was not an easy process as the original tenants were not communicating with each other which left the landlord in the unenviable position of being the go-between and having to act as a mediator.
The landlord contracted a cleaner to clean (hot wash) the stains and marks on the carpet; the cost was paid for by [Tenant 3]. As it turns out the carpet cleaning did not remove the stains/marks. However it appears that neither the tenants or the cleaner advised the landlord the carpet was not remedied. When [Tenant 2] moved into [Tenant 3]’s ex-bedroom, she placed rugs over the marks in the bedroom. Rugs were also placed over the stains and marks in the lounge. Accordingly the landlord did not see the damage during inspections, and only became aware the damage still existed after the tenancy ended on 4 October 2024.
[Tenant 1] disputes she or [Tenant 2] have any liability as: •the landlord only had a hot wash of the carpet done when [Tenant 3] moved out, where as a ‘full’ carpet clean may have removed the stains. •she paid [Tenant 3] her half of the bond ($1,000.00) when she left which was before the variation was signed, and [Tenant 2] paid her share of the bond before the variation was signed. [Tenant 1] understand from the property manager that the bond had to be sorted out between them before the variation was signed. However the carpet was not cleaned until after the variation was signed and [Tenant 3] had been paid her share of the bond. •The current bond is a bond paid by herself and [Tenant 2]. •Neither she nor [Tenant 2] caused the stains and [Tenant 1] does not believe they have any liability, including that the bond should not be used for the cost to remedy the carpet as [Tenant 3] caused the problem.
However the terms of the variation signed by all three tenants, and that this is a joint tenancy are significant in determining whether [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] have any liability.
The variation to the tenancy agreement states under the heading Liability: The remaining (including any new tenants that have joined), tenants acknowledge that they are jointly and severely bound in liability to the landlord and they assume liability for the rented property’s condition and through the report detailing it’s entry condition and any current condition and for all covenants contained in the existing tenancy agreement. All parties agree that the leaving/outgoing tenants are only released from liability after all parties have signed this document and the leaving/departing tenants have permanently vacated the premises.
The effect of this term is that [Tenant 3] no longer has liability to the landlord for the stained and marked carpet, and that [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] have liability for the condition of the carpet. They are joint tenants and therefore, as explained below, are both liable for the cost to remedy the damage done to the carpet.
Tenants who enter into a tenancy together are jointly and severally liable. That means that all tenants are equally responsible or liable (even without personal fault) for carrying out the full terms of the contract. If any obligations are breached, such as damage to the premises occurring during the tenancy, then each tenant is jointly liable with the other tenant/s as well as being separately liable for the breach. Simply put, the landlord may sue just one tenant in relation to the breach or all the tenants, as all the tenants are fully responsible for any breach.
In terms of the bond [Tenant 1] paid to [Tenant 3], I am satisfied that [Tenant 1] could have waited until after the carpet was cleaned before making a payment, and could have refused to refund the bond to [Tenant 3] until the issue was totally sorted out. I am persuaded the reason the landlord discussed payment of the bond in association with replacing [Tenant 3] as a tenant was because the tenants were not communicating with each other.
In addition, [Tenant 1] could have told the landlord the stains were still in the carpet after the cleaning. Had she done that it would be expected that the landlord would have attempted further cleaning at that point and if that was not successful discussed options of remedy with both [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 1]. As the stains and marks were then covered over the landlord was not able to see they were still there until the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I find the damage has probably been carelessly caused.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s insurer has accepted the landlord’s claim to replace the damaged carpet. As set out above the landlord originally claimed two excesses of $1,000 but reduced the sum claimed to $1,562.50 to take into account betterment and depreciation. In doing so the landlord has considered the carpet has a life span of 8 years and that the carpet was 1 year 9 months old at the end of this tenancy. The replacement carpet is exactly the same as the carpet being replaced. I accept the reduced sum claimed reasonably allows for betterment and depreciation and is awarded. Other matters
As the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim and I must award the filing fee.
The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published or any other identifying details of the previous tenant or the property.
This decision determines liability between the tenants and the landlord. It does not determine liability between the tenants and does not prevent a claim being filed in the Disputes Tribunal to determine liability between the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089629 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089629 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions