What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117970 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 5117970?

Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $933.47 awarded to landlord; Glass: $216.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117970?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117970 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 5117970?

Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $933.47 awarded to landlord; Glass: $216.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117970?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117970 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117970 — net $1,274.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: glass	$216.33	Repairs: glass
Repairs: carpet	$933.47	Repairs: carpet
Net award	$1,274.80
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,274.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and owner’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,274.80 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,274.80 [The tenant/s]: $725.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants being represented by Mr [R].
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 11 February 2022 and ended on 29 November 2024.
The landlord sought compensation $2,000 for cleaning and repair of holes, $6,895.38 for carpet replacement and $216.33 for replacement window in the back door.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claimed $250 for cleaning and cutting away and removing old and growing vegetation. There was a second invoice for $186.88 for cleaning.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that they had cleaned the premises and pointed to an email from the Property Manager who had agreed that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
It is usual for a landlord to need to undertake some cleaning to get the premises ready for a new tenant.
The landlord has not established that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy and so that claim is dismissed.
There was a further issue of some green waste that had been left. The tenant agreed that they were responsible for removing that and so agreed to pay half of the invoice for $250 (which included cleaning). I have therefore ordered $125 for removal of greenwaste.
The owner submitted a further invoice in relation to the grounds. It was for $115 for mowing the lawns (twice to get down to normal length) and disposing of the clippings.
The tenant said that they paid for the lawns to be mown on a fortnightly basis and that the last one was on 21 November, which was 8 days before the tenancy ended on 29 November 2024.
The photographs of the lawn, taken on 2 December show a lawn that is ready for a mow, but not so much as to require two mowings. I would not describe it as overgrown. There was no need for the tenant to mow the lawns again the day that they moved out, when it was only 8 days since they had been mown.
I do not find that the tenants are responsible for mowing the lawns again at the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Replacement glass
The tenant explained that during the tenancy a cat door had been installed. Because it was an expensive computer chip door, they decided to take it with them. They arranged for the glass to be replaced and had intended it to be reinforced glass, but accept that was not what occurred. He agreed to pay for the proper glass replacement of $216.33, and so that is ordered.
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. Hole in toilet wall
At the end of the tenancy there was a small hole in the wall of the toilet. The tenant said that it was because the door stop was loose. He said it was there at the start of the tenancy, but may have got worse. He provided a photograph of the damage at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection also referred to a dent.
I agree there has been a small amount of deterioration, but find that it fair wear and tear, and not due to the carelessness or intentional actions of the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Carpet
The much bigger item in dispute is the carpet.
The landlord says that all of the carpet has to be replaced because of cat urine. They produced an email from Gordon Doull of Gold Carpeting saying that their inspection of the carpet on 6 December 2024 revealed areas of carpet containing urine, probably from pets, in the lounge, 3 bedrooms and hallway. He said that locating all areas of urine can be very difficult and there are likely to be a number of affected spots that were not detected.
Mr Doull went on to say that treating urine in carpets can be problematic and that the urine will have penetrated through into the underlay and possibly floorboards. Treatment involves removing the underlay, flushing the carpet with specialist deodorizing products, force drying the carpet, possibly sealing some floorboards, fitting new underlay and relaying the carpet. He said that multiple treatments would be required. He thought that the cost would exceed replacement of the carpet.
The landlord produced photographs showing stains on the underlay.
During the tenancy, the tenants had between 2 and 3 cats. One of the cats lived inside one of the bedrooms. The cats used litter boxes inside. One cat did urinate inside in one of the bedrooms, but none of the other cats did.
The tenants accept that this caused damage to the carpet by scratching at it and that it urinated inside. They accepted that they should pay some compensation out of the bond.
During the tenancy, the tenants had been told to ventilate the property because of the smell. They changed the litterboxes and the smell dissipated.
The tenants say that there were other pets in previous tenancies and that the tradespeople had dogs or that other stray cats could have come in the house.
[The property manager] said that she managed this property before the tenants moved in and it did not smell at the start of the tenancy.
I find it more likely than not that there was damage done to the carpet throughout the house because of cat urine. Where a house smells of cat urine and the occupiers have cats, it is more likely than not that the smell is as a result of their cats. It may be possible that another cat came in and did so, but the more likely cause is the occupants’ cats. There is no evidence that another cat did that.
Therefore I find that damage was caused to the carpet during the tenancy by the tenants’ cats, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has not had the whole house recarpeted. She has had one bedroom done at a cost of $1,461.71. She has also paid to have the carpet removed and the floor boars scrubbed and deoderised and an odour blocking sealant applied at a cost of $586.50. The carpet was 5 to 6 years old.
Assuming that the cost of the carpet was $1461.71 5 years ago, applying the IRD depreciation rates for rental carpet, it has depreciated to $346.87 using the diminishing value method at 25% or to $182.72 using the straightline value at
5%. The carpet appeared in good condition at the start of the tenancy and so it is reasonable to use the higher of those two amounts. The tenants are also responsible for the removal of the old carpet. That makes a total of $933.37.
As for the rest of the house, the landlord has not replaced those because of lack of funds. However, that means that she has not incurred a loss for this. Accordingly no order is made in relation to the rest of the carpet.
The tenant has substantially succeeded and so there is an order for non- publication of their names.
There is also an order for non-publication of the owner’s name.
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117970 — net $1,274.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: glass	$216.33	Repairs: glass
Repairs: carpet	$933.47	Repairs: carpet
Net award	$1,274.80
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,274.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and owner’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,274.80 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,274.80 [The tenant/s]: $725.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants being represented by Mr [R].
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 11 February 2022 and ended on 29 November 2024.
The landlord sought compensation $2,000 for cleaning and repair of holes, $6,895.38 for carpet replacement and $216.33 for replacement window in the back door.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claimed $250 for cleaning and cutting away and removing old and growing vegetation. There was a second invoice for $186.88 for cleaning.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that they had cleaned the premises and pointed to an email from the Property Manager who had agreed that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
It is usual for a landlord to need to undertake some cleaning to get the premises ready for a new tenant.
The landlord has not established that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy and so that claim is dismissed.
There was a further issue of some green waste that had been left. The tenant agreed that they were responsible for removing that and so agreed to pay half of the invoice for $250 (which included cleaning). I have therefore ordered $125 for removal of greenwaste.
The owner submitted a further invoice in relation to the grounds. It was for $115 for mowing the lawns (twice to get down to normal length) and disposing of the clippings.
The tenant said that they paid for the lawns to be mown on a fortnightly basis and that the last one was on 21 November, which was 8 days before the tenancy ended on 29 November 2024.
The photographs of the lawn, taken on 2 December show a lawn that is ready for a mow, but not so much as to require two mowings. I would not describe it as overgrown. There was no need for the tenant to mow the lawns again the day that they moved out, when it was only 8 days since they had been mown.
I do not find that the tenants are responsible for mowing the lawns again at the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Replacement glass
The tenant explained that during the tenancy a cat door had been installed. Because it was an expensive computer chip door, they decided to take it with them. They arranged for the glass to be replaced and had intended it to be reinforced glass, but accept that was not what occurred. He agreed to pay for the proper glass replacement of $216.33, and so that is ordered.
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. Hole in toilet wall
At the end of the tenancy there was a small hole in the wall of the toilet. The tenant said that it was because the door stop was loose. He said it was there at the start of the tenancy, but may have got worse. He provided a photograph of the damage at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection also referred to a dent.
I agree there has been a small amount of deterioration, but find that it fair wear and tear, and not due to the carelessness or intentional actions of the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Carpet
The much bigger item in dispute is the carpet.
The landlord says that all of the carpet has to be replaced because of cat urine. They produced an email from Gordon Doull of Gold Carpeting saying that their inspection of the carpet on 6 December 2024 revealed areas of carpet containing urine, probably from pets, in the lounge, 3 bedrooms and hallway. He said that locating all areas of urine can be very difficult and there are likely to be a number of affected spots that were not detected.
Mr Doull went on to say that treating urine in carpets can be problematic and that the urine will have penetrated through into the underlay and possibly floorboards. Treatment involves removing the underlay, flushing the carpet with specialist deodorizing products, force drying the carpet, possibly sealing some floorboards, fitting new underlay and relaying the carpet. He said that multiple treatments would be required. He thought that the cost would exceed replacement of the carpet.
The landlord produced photographs showing stains on the underlay.
During the tenancy, the tenants had between 2 and 3 cats. One of the cats lived inside one of the bedrooms. The cats used litter boxes inside. One cat did urinate inside in one of the bedrooms, but none of the other cats did.
The tenants accept that this caused damage to the carpet by scratching at it and that it urinated inside. They accepted that they should pay some compensation out of the bond.
During the tenancy, the tenants had been told to ventilate the property because of the smell. They changed the litterboxes and the smell dissipated.
The tenants say that there were other pets in previous tenancies and that the tradespeople had dogs or that other stray cats could have come in the house.
[The property manager] said that she managed this property before the tenants moved in and it did not smell at the start of the tenancy.
I find it more likely than not that there was damage done to the carpet throughout the house because of cat urine. Where a house smells of cat urine and the occupiers have cats, it is more likely than not that the smell is as a result of their cats. It may be possible that another cat came in and did so, but the more likely cause is the occupants’ cats. There is no evidence that another cat did that.
Therefore I find that damage was caused to the carpet during the tenancy by the tenants’ cats, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has not had the whole house recarpeted. She has had one bedroom done at a cost of $1,461.71. She has also paid to have the carpet removed and the floor boars scrubbed and deoderised and an odour blocking sealant applied at a cost of $586.50. The carpet was 5 to 6 years old.
Assuming that the cost of the carpet was $1461.71 5 years ago, applying the IRD depreciation rates for rental carpet, it has depreciated to $346.87 using the diminishing value method at 25% or to $182.72 using the straightline value at
5%. The carpet appeared in good condition at the start of the tenancy and so it is reasonable to use the higher of those two amounts. The tenants are also responsible for the removal of the old carpet. That makes a total of $933.37.
As for the rest of the house, the landlord has not replaced those because of lack of funds. However, that means that she has not incurred a loss for this. Accordingly no order is made in relation to the rest of the carpet.
The tenant has substantially succeeded and so there is an order for non- publication of their names.
There is also an order for non-publication of the owner’s name.
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117970 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117970 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions