What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129254?

The tribunal order states: Paris Williams and Kishan Kumar must pay Better Place Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5129254?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $790.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,430.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $619.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129254?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11503487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129254?

The tribunal order states: Paris Williams and Kishan Kumar must pay Better Place Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5129254?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $790.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,430.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $619.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129254?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11503487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

112 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129254 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129254 — net $911.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$619.00	Rent arrears
Carpet replacement	$2,430.00	Carpet replacement
Net curtain replacement	$325.00	Net curtain replacement
Loss of rent	$790.00	Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$911.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$911.00

Order

Paris Williams and Kishan Kumar must pay Better Place Holdings Limited $911.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (6515195-001) to Better Place Holdings Limited immediately.
The tenants seek a suppression Order but the grounds in s.95A RTA are not established.

Reasons

The hearing was held by videoconference. The landlord was represented by its director Ms Steenken. The tenants were represented by Ms Williams. Mr Kumar was not able to be contacted by phone.
The initial application was filed by the tenants who seek to recover part at least of their bond. The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded as substantively a claim by the landlord for compensation from the tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy for a term from 28 December 2023 to 27 December 2024.
An Order of the Tribunal dated 22 October 2024 (application 4989728) records: a. the parties’ agreement that the tenancy would end on 31 October 2024; and b. that rent arrears of $2,640.00 were owed to the date of the Order.
Rent of $1,054.00 was payable from 23 October 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 31 October 2024, giving a total payable to the end of the tenancy of $3,694.00. The landlord has provided rent records showing that $3,075.00 was paid by the tenants after the October Order, which the tenants do not dispute.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and should pay commercial cleaning costs of $350.00. The landlord confirms that no other cleaning charges were incurred before a new tenancy began.
The exit photographs show that the carpets were not left clean. The issues with the carpets are addressed through other claims.
Otherwise, the evidence provided does not prove that the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. That claim is declined.

Are the tenants 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 tenants 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 tenants’ 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.
In considering whether claims are proved, the Tribunal must assess whether the facts are proved, not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities (ie. more likely than not). Background to damage claims
The agreement provided that, “A maximum of 3 pets [cats] allowed and pets are allowed indoors”.
The landlord says that the cats turned out to be un-neutered male cats and were therefore likely to spray.
Ms Williams says that after an initial 2 week acclimatisation period when the cats were kept inside with a litter box in one of the rooms, they were allowed outside, toileted outside and would therefore not have damaged the carpets with urine of faeces.
It is useful to note that the outset that: a. although the tenants were permitted by the agreement to have the cats, the tenants are responsible for any damage caused by them; b. there is no current provision in the RTA for payment of a pet bond; c. it is not appropriate that the Tribunal make any assumptions about the likelihood of cats causing damage (because they are un-neutered) or not causing damage (because they are well toilet trained). Rather the Tribunal must consider the evidence of actual damage and actual likely cause, bearing in mind which party has the onus of proof, as noted in paragraph 11. Carpets
The landlord’s evidence is that after the tenants vacated, the premises were found to be stained by cat urine and cat faeces and to be badly affected by the associated smells. The landlord says that attempts to clean the carpet (at the tenants’ cost) were unsuccessful and that the carpets needed to be replaced.
End of tenancy photographs show staining to the carpet from what appears to faeces and urine.
The landlord’s position is corroborated by a statement from the agent engaged by the landlord to arrange a new tenancy which says: “After the tenants vacated we were unable to advertise the property straight away as there was clearly an issue with pet urine throughout the downstairs bedrooms. It was so bad that we advised that we would not be able to bring people through until the carpet and underlay were replaced. This resulted in a delay of 2.5 weeks while contractors were completing work at the property.”
The landlord made a claim against her insurance. Initially the insurer required that the landlord make 6 excess payments but that was subsequently reduced to 4. The statement from the insurer confirms the landlord’s loss to be: a. 4 x excess payment @ $550.00 = $2,200.00; plus b. payment for replacement of the carpet in a cupboard, excluded from the claim as being below the excess amount = $230.00.
The fact that the landlord’s insurer accepted the need for replacement of the carpets, is further corroboration of the landlord’s position.
Ms Williams says that: a. an inspection undertaken in April 2024 by another property manager did not raise any issues about carpet damage; b. the tenants did not notice any undue odour in the premises; c. significant efforts were made to clan the carpets when the tenancy ended.
In short, the tenants do not accept that the carpets were so badly damaged by cat urine/ fasces as to require replacement.
On balance, I find it proved that: a. the carpets were damaged during the tenancy by cat faeces and urine and the resulting smells; b. the damage was more than fair wear and tear; c. the tenants have not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage; d. the loss caused to the landlord is as recorded in the insurance statement.
Because the carpets were new at the start of the tenancy and the compensation is limited to payment of the insurance excesses, no allowance for depreciation is appropriate. Curtains
The landlord says that the cats caused damage to net curtains and also made a hole in the curtains in the main bedroom.
Communications between the partes at the time shows the tenants having sent photos to the landlord with the note, “Strings and holes in curtains”.
The landlord informed the tenants, “The (net) curtains in Paris’ bedroom have been damaged by the cats as per the pictures you logged........These (net) curtains need to be replaced at the end of the tenancy.” The landlord noted that the cost would be $550.00, the insurance excess, though both parties agreed that the claim and repair should be deferred in case of further damage.
There was some discussion about the tenants paying off the cost, then the tenants confirmed, “This can be taken out of the bond as we’ve mentioned before.”
The landlord’s position is that the net and main curtains need to be replaced. A new tenancy has started without any of those curtains being replaced, although the landlord says she has assured the new tenants they will be replaced once a determination is made by the Tribunal. The landlord has provided a quote from Curtain Studio for replacement of the curtains and nets at a total cost of $1,960.00. The landlord claims the cost of the excess.
Though it appears the tenants agreed that $550.00 could be taken from their bond for the curtains, they cannot be held to that agreement if that would exceed their obligations under the RTA (see s.11).
I find it proved from the photographic evidence and the correspondence between the parties that the net curtains, but only the net curtains, were damaged during the tenancy to an extent that required them to be replaced. The replacement cost in terms of the quote provided is $387.22. I am not convinced that the call out and mileage fee allowed for in the quote would be necessary for replacement only of the net curtains.
Net curtains have a short depreciable life and a 16% allowance for depreciation should be made. Loss of rents
The landlord claims compensation for 2 weeks’ loss of rent for the period the carpet replacement was being completed.
Inability to rent the premises out while repair work is being undertaken, is an actual and foreseeable loss caused by the breach that caused the damage needing repair. As such, it is a loss for which compensation can be sought and awarded.
The landlord’s insurance covers loss of rent. The landlord’s evidence is that she enquired about making a claim but was told she couldn’t because the tenancy had ended before the loss was incurred, which appears consistent with the policy wording which states that the cover applies, “...while the home is a residential rental property...”.
The extent of the landlord’s loss ie. the length of time it takes before the landlord begins receiving rent from a new tenancy, will be affected by factors such as the time taken with the insurance claim and the remediation works and market conditions affecting the landlord’s ability to relet the premises. Those are matters out of the tenants’ control for which the tenants should not be penalised. For that reason, while the landlord is entitled to some compensation for its loss of rental income, I consider it just to limit the amount awarded to one week’s rent.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129254 — net $911.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$619.00	Rent arrears
Carpet replacement	$2,430.00	Carpet replacement
Net curtain replacement	$325.00	Net curtain replacement
Loss of rent	$790.00	Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$911.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$911.00

Order

Paris Williams and Kishan Kumar must pay Better Place Holdings Limited $911.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (6515195-001) to Better Place Holdings Limited immediately.
The tenants seek a suppression Order but the grounds in s.95A RTA are not established.

Reasons

The hearing was held by videoconference. The landlord was represented by its director Ms Steenken. The tenants were represented by Ms Williams. Mr Kumar was not able to be contacted by phone.
The initial application was filed by the tenants who seek to recover part at least of their bond. The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded as substantively a claim by the landlord for compensation from the tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy for a term from 28 December 2023 to 27 December 2024.
An Order of the Tribunal dated 22 October 2024 (application 4989728) records: a. the parties’ agreement that the tenancy would end on 31 October 2024; and b. that rent arrears of $2,640.00 were owed to the date of the Order.
Rent of $1,054.00 was payable from 23 October 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 31 October 2024, giving a total payable to the end of the tenancy of $3,694.00. The landlord has provided rent records showing that $3,075.00 was paid by the tenants after the October Order, which the tenants do not dispute.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and should pay commercial cleaning costs of $350.00. The landlord confirms that no other cleaning charges were incurred before a new tenancy began.
The exit photographs show that the carpets were not left clean. The issues with the carpets are addressed through other claims.
Otherwise, the evidence provided does not prove that the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. That claim is declined.

Are the tenants 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 tenants 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 tenants’ 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.
In considering whether claims are proved, the Tribunal must assess whether the facts are proved, not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities (ie. more likely than not). Background to damage claims
The agreement provided that, “A maximum of 3 pets [cats] allowed and pets are allowed indoors”.
The landlord says that the cats turned out to be un-neutered male cats and were therefore likely to spray.
Ms Williams says that after an initial 2 week acclimatisation period when the cats were kept inside with a litter box in one of the rooms, they were allowed outside, toileted outside and would therefore not have damaged the carpets with urine of faeces.
It is useful to note that the outset that: a. although the tenants were permitted by the agreement to have the cats, the tenants are responsible for any damage caused by them; b. there is no current provision in the RTA for payment of a pet bond; c. it is not appropriate that the Tribunal make any assumptions about the likelihood of cats causing damage (because they are un-neutered) or not causing damage (because they are well toilet trained). Rather the Tribunal must consider the evidence of actual damage and actual likely cause, bearing in mind which party has the onus of proof, as noted in paragraph 11. Carpets
The landlord’s evidence is that after the tenants vacated, the premises were found to be stained by cat urine and cat faeces and to be badly affected by the associated smells. The landlord says that attempts to clean the carpet (at the tenants’ cost) were unsuccessful and that the carpets needed to be replaced.
End of tenancy photographs show staining to the carpet from what appears to faeces and urine.
The landlord’s position is corroborated by a statement from the agent engaged by the landlord to arrange a new tenancy which says: “After the tenants vacated we were unable to advertise the property straight away as there was clearly an issue with pet urine throughout the downstairs bedrooms. It was so bad that we advised that we would not be able to bring people through until the carpet and underlay were replaced. This resulted in a delay of 2.5 weeks while contractors were completing work at the property.”
The landlord made a claim against her insurance. Initially the insurer required that the landlord make 6 excess payments but that was subsequently reduced to 4. The statement from the insurer confirms the landlord’s loss to be: a. 4 x excess payment @ $550.00 = $2,200.00; plus b. payment for replacement of the carpet in a cupboard, excluded from the claim as being below the excess amount = $230.00.
The fact that the landlord’s insurer accepted the need for replacement of the carpets, is further corroboration of the landlord’s position.
Ms Williams says that: a. an inspection undertaken in April 2024 by another property manager did not raise any issues about carpet damage; b. the tenants did not notice any undue odour in the premises; c. significant efforts were made to clan the carpets when the tenancy ended.
In short, the tenants do not accept that the carpets were so badly damaged by cat urine/ fasces as to require replacement.
On balance, I find it proved that: a. the carpets were damaged during the tenancy by cat faeces and urine and the resulting smells; b. the damage was more than fair wear and tear; c. the tenants have not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage; d. the loss caused to the landlord is as recorded in the insurance statement.
Because the carpets were new at the start of the tenancy and the compensation is limited to payment of the insurance excesses, no allowance for depreciation is appropriate. Curtains
The landlord says that the cats caused damage to net curtains and also made a hole in the curtains in the main bedroom.
Communications between the partes at the time shows the tenants having sent photos to the landlord with the note, “Strings and holes in curtains”.
The landlord informed the tenants, “The (net) curtains in Paris’ bedroom have been damaged by the cats as per the pictures you logged........These (net) curtains need to be replaced at the end of the tenancy.” The landlord noted that the cost would be $550.00, the insurance excess, though both parties agreed that the claim and repair should be deferred in case of further damage.
There was some discussion about the tenants paying off the cost, then the tenants confirmed, “This can be taken out of the bond as we’ve mentioned before.”
The landlord’s position is that the net and main curtains need to be replaced. A new tenancy has started without any of those curtains being replaced, although the landlord says she has assured the new tenants they will be replaced once a determination is made by the Tribunal. The landlord has provided a quote from Curtain Studio for replacement of the curtains and nets at a total cost of $1,960.00. The landlord claims the cost of the excess.
Though it appears the tenants agreed that $550.00 could be taken from their bond for the curtains, they cannot be held to that agreement if that would exceed their obligations under the RTA (see s.11).
I find it proved from the photographic evidence and the correspondence between the parties that the net curtains, but only the net curtains, were damaged during the tenancy to an extent that required them to be replaced. The replacement cost in terms of the quote provided is $387.22. I am not convinced that the call out and mileage fee allowed for in the quote would be necessary for replacement only of the net curtains.
Net curtains have a short depreciable life and a 16% allowance for depreciation should be made. Loss of rents
The landlord claims compensation for 2 weeks’ loss of rent for the period the carpet replacement was being completed.
Inability to rent the premises out while repair work is being undertaken, is an actual and foreseeable loss caused by the breach that caused the damage needing repair. As such, it is a loss for which compensation can be sought and awarded.
The landlord’s insurance covers loss of rent. The landlord’s evidence is that she enquired about making a claim but was told she couldn’t because the tenancy had ended before the loss was incurred, which appears consistent with the policy wording which states that the cover applies, “...while the home is a residential rental property...”.
The extent of the landlord’s loss ie. the length of time it takes before the landlord begins receiving rent from a new tenancy, will be affected by factors such as the time taken with the insurance claim and the remediation works and market conditions affecting the landlord’s ability to relet the premises. Those are matters out of the tenants’ control for which the tenants should not be penalised. For that reason, while the landlord is entitled to some compensation for its loss of rental income, I consider it just to limit the amount awarded to one week’s rent.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129254 — Property damage at 112 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129254 — Property damage at 112 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants 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 tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions