What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125128?

The tribunal order states: Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts to pay Summit Property

How much money was awarded in case 5125128?

Break Costs (50: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $337.14 awarded to tenant; Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpe…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet -…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Value: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125128?

The tribunal order states: Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts to pay Summit Property

How much money was awarded in case 5125128?

Break Costs (50: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $337.14 awarded to tenant; Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpe…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet -…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Value: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

69A Robinson Road, The Brook, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125128 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125128 — net $1,372.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - excess	$550.00		Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - excess
Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpet - depreciated	$250.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpet - depreciated
value	$230.00		value
Repairs	$258.75		Repairs
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Break costs (50	$333.50		Break costs (50
Rent credit		$337.14	Rent credit
Total award	$1,709.25	$337.14
Net award	$1,372.11
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.11

Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson $1,372.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (3532442-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson: $1,372.11 Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts: $987.89

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, converted to teleconference due to the current closure of the Nelson District Court.

The tenants advised via email just prior to the hearing that they would not attend but that they disputed a number of the claims.

The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 November 2024. The tenants had purchased a home and requested a break. A new tenancy commenced immediately after this one and no loss of rent occurred. The landlord advised a rent credit of $337.14 in favour of the tenants was held by them. This has been applied against the debt in this order.

Did the landlord incur costs due to the break of the fixed-term?

This was a fixed-term tenancy for one year. It ended some 75% of the way through the fixed-term. No rent loss occurred due to a new tenancy commencing immediately.

The landlord sought $667.00 compensation for costs incurred due to the early ending of this fixed term. I accept the costs as detailed in the invoice (as required) are reasonable. However, in my view, when a fixed-term runs for much of the intended period, and with no rent loss and a new tenancy with a further one year fixed-term (as was the case here), some consideration to a time-based apportionment is appropriate. If the fixed-term had ended three months later, the costs sought here would have been incurred by the landlord at its expense, with any recovery from the owner per their commercial terms.

Effectively, with a second one-year fixed term in place, the landlord has fixed- term certainty over an extended 21-month duration. It would be inequitable to assign all of the cost recovery on the tenant. I consider 50% of the cost paid by the tenant balances the respective costs and apportionment and I award that amount, being $333.50, as the reasonable costs for recovery.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did leave most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and arranged a professional carpet clean. There were two pet cats during the tenancy and the landlord sought compensation for the removal of cat hair from curtains. Photos establish the need and most likely cause while an invoice evidenced the cost to remedy. The full invoice of $60.00 is awarded.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant 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 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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Three rooms carpets was stained and/or damaged by pet urine. The landlord sought three excess amounts of $550.00 for each room. The carpet is soon to be replaced but of the three quotes, only the living room is considered where the excess of $550.00 is lower than the depreciated value. The two other rooms replacement cost, after depreciation, are less than the $550.00 excess in each instance. I have allowed the full excess for the living room but award the lower, depreciated value for ten-year-old carpet in the two other rooms at $250.00 and $230.00 respectively. b. Damage to some internal surfaces from pets and damage to an external fence post. The cost claimed was $258.75. This is supported by the evidence and landlord’s submissions regarding prior discussion with the tenants regarding some of the damage. This cost is awarded in full.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 carpet was approximately ten years old and the ingoing condition photos reflect such an age and expected condition. It still had a use beyond its expired economic life but the calculated residual value had, in two instances, been less than the excess sum sought. Filing fee

Because Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125128 — net $1,372.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - excess	$550.00		Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - excess
Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpet - depreciated	$250.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom 1 carpet - depreciated
value	$230.00		value
Repairs	$258.75		Repairs
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Break costs (50	$333.50		Break costs (50
Rent credit		$337.14	Rent credit
Total award	$1,709.25	$337.14
Net award	$1,372.11
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.11

Order

Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson $1,372.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (3532442-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson: $1,372.11 Richard Greg Inman and Robin Anne Watts: $987.89

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, converted to teleconference due to the current closure of the Nelson District Court.
The tenants advised via email just prior to the hearing that they would not attend but that they disputed a number of the claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 November 2024. The tenants had purchased a home and requested a break. A new tenancy commenced immediately after this one and no loss of rent occurred. The landlord advised a rent credit of $337.14 in favour of the tenants was held by them. This has been applied against the debt in this order.

Did the landlord incur costs due to the break of the fixed-term?

This was a fixed-term tenancy for one year. It ended some 75% of the way through the fixed-term. No rent loss occurred due to a new tenancy commencing immediately.
The landlord sought $667.00 compensation for costs incurred due to the early ending of this fixed term. I accept the costs as detailed in the invoice (as required) are reasonable. However, in my view, when a fixed-term runs for much of the intended period, and with no rent loss and a new tenancy with a further one year fixed-term (as was the case here), some consideration to a time-based apportionment is appropriate. If the fixed-term had ended three months later, the costs sought here would have been incurred by the landlord at its expense, with any recovery from the owner per their commercial terms.
Effectively, with a second one-year fixed term in place, the landlord has fixed- term certainty over an extended 21-month duration. It would be inequitable to assign all of the cost recovery on the tenant. I consider 50% of the cost paid by the tenant balances the respective costs and apportionment and I award that amount, being $333.50, as the reasonable costs for recovery.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did leave most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and arranged a professional carpet clean. There were two pet cats during the tenancy and the landlord sought compensation for the removal of cat hair from curtains. Photos establish the need and most likely cause while an invoice evidenced the cost to remedy. The full invoice of $60.00 is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant 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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Three rooms carpets was stained and/or damaged by pet urine. The landlord sought three excess amounts of $550.00 for each room. The carpet is soon to be replaced but of the three quotes, only the living room is considered where the excess of $550.00 is lower than the depreciated value. The two other rooms replacement cost, after depreciation, are less than the $550.00 excess in each instance. I have allowed the full excess for the living room but award the lower, depreciated value for ten-year-old carpet in the two other rooms at $250.00 and $230.00 respectively. b. Damage to some internal surfaces from pets and damage to an external fence post. The cost claimed was $258.75. This is supported by the evidence and landlord’s submissions regarding prior discussion with the tenants regarding some of the damage. This cost is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 carpet was approximately ten years old and the ingoing condition photos reflect such an age and expected condition. It still had a use beyond its expired economic life but the calculated residual value had, in two instances, been less than the excess sum sought. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Corey David Stewart & Rebecca Ruth Wilson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125128 — Property damage at 69A Robinson Road, The Brook, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125128 — Property damage at 69A Robinson Road, The Brook, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord incur costs due to the break of the fixed-term?

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

Is the tenant 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

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord incur costs due to the break of the fixed-term?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions