What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5146108?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5146108?

Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146108?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12003292-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5146108?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5146108?

Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146108?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12003292-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 George Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146108 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

10 George Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146108 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146108 — net $5,791.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT	$65.00	Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT
Carpet Cleaning	$199.00	Carpet Cleaning
Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess	$500.00	Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess
Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property	$5,000.00	Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,791.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.00

Claims and awards for application 5146108 — net $5,791.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT

Amount: $65.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $199.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess

Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property

Amount: $5,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property

Filing fee

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No suppression orders apply to this decision.
The landlord may file a further application for carpet replacement if required.
Megan Kay Fletcher and Nelson Kelly Crow must pay Property Brokers Limited, Julia Rozgon (as Trustee for the McCourt and Rozgon Family Trust) $5,791.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties attended the hearing. Both tenants attended as did two representatives of Property Brokers Limited (Property Brokers). They are the property managers for the owner - Ms Rozgon as a trustee for the McCourt and Rozgon Family Trust.

Who is the landlord?

Property Brokers took over the day-to-day management of this tenancy on 1 April 2024. The tenancy was previously managed by a different property management business. At all times the owner has been Ms Rozgon as a trustee of the above named trust. Ms Rozgon is named on the tenancy agreement.
Ms Rozgon herself, as a trustee, was added as a party to the application during the course of the hearing. Her property managers confirmed this as being appropriate and the tenants were also willing.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between tenants and landlords. A property manager can only be an applicant or respondent therefore if they have status as a landlord.
The definition of the landlord in section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) includes an agent “where appropriate”.
Here I find it is appropriate for Property Brokers to be a landlord alongside the owner Ms Rozgon. It transferred the bond into their own name upon taking over the management of the property and conducted all day-to-day management of the tenancy from 1 April 2024.
This follows the approach taken in Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. In that case the District Court noted that the definition in s 2 RTA expressly stipulates that an agent is the “landlord” for the purposes of the obligations in the RTA.
The appeal in that case was from the tenant, who opposed the original order from the Tribunal that the money ordered to be paid by the landlord, only be paid by the owner of the premises as landlord. The tenant wanted the order to be made against the property managers as landlord. The court upheld the appeal and made the order for the property managers to pay the amounts ordered as well as the landlord (owner). Judge Clarke confirmed: For practical purposes, I also note any search of the Tribunal’s decision database will show numerous decisions which record a property manager as a party in Tribunal proceedings, either making claims against tenants or defending them. The property managers are recorded as “agents for a (named) landlord” but not always. What this means then is a property manager must meet the obligations, which are imposed by the RTA on the landlord, as if it was a landlord. When liabilities imposed on the property manager (as agent) the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner and the general agency law, or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something which can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction. What that means is that it is no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner and effectively ignore requests which are made by tenants when obligations under the RTA have been breached. In this instance both property managers have made submissions which attempt to do that. I reject those submissions entirely. As property managers they take on the professional responsibility to ensure compliance is met at all stages...
It follows that if claims can be bought against property managers as landlords, then similarly, as landlords they can also make claims against tenants.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that both Property Brokers and Ms Rozgon as a trustee, are landlords, so they are both able to make this application.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agree that the tenancy has ended and the bond has been released to cover some arrears. The parties agree that the final amount to the end of the tenancy is $65.00. This is ordered by consent.

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 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.
The Tribunal must take 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 says that the tenants caused damage to the walls and three doors at the property and also claimed the tenants damaged a kitchen cabinet with water damage. Kitchen cabinet
I am satisfied that the landlord proved that the kitchen cabinet was water damaged during the course of the tenancy. It is next to the sink.
The tenants say that they reported a leaking tap to the previous property manager but that nothing was done about this. They say the damage was caused by the leaking tap from the start of the tenancy. The tenants say there was an occasion when they did cause a flood when they left a tap on when they were doing the dishes but returned to the lounge. There was no probative evidence of a leaking tap, or prior reports of this.
The landlord says that when Property Managers took over the management of the property there was no issue seen with a tap, the cabinet was still intact, and the issue was not reported to them. I was shown a photograph in an inspection report undertaken by Property Brokers on 30 May 2024 taken shortly after they had taken over. I accept this shows no damage to the cabinet.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was caused by a maintenance issue. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Given the nature of the damage I find it most likely to have been careless damage. An invoice provided shows expenditure of over $1,200 relating to the repair of the kitchen, initial sanding of walls and spraying carpets. I accept that the materials alone for the repair of the cabinet would have exceeded the excess of $500.
I award the landlord the excess of $500.00.
I have not depreciated the repair because I find there has been an improvement to the kitchen as a result of the repair. Walls and doors/frames
The landlord claims for repair work to walls and doors and door frames in the property.
The landlord had evidence of the walls being in good condition at the start of the tenancy. I have no reason to doubt the written comment that the paintwork was new in the living/dining/kitchen and 3 bedrooms.
The landlord had evidence of damage at the end of the tenancy. The photographs suggest the tenants have sought to undertake repairs to specific areas. A report undertaken by an insurance assessor identified numerous areas of damage giving rise to 13 areas of damage which the landlord supported with photographs.
The tenants say that the damage was there when Property Brokers took over and it wasn’t raised then, and the previous property manager did not have an issue with it and that they were never asked to remedy it. They say that some of it is general scuffing and sometimes it related to the handle going into the wall.
Property Brokers say damage was not evident in their inspections and they consider the damage was done towards the end of the tenancy.
I do not find it credible that the repair work was necessarily evident during mid- tenancy inspections with Property Brokers. The previous inspection in November 2024, for example, shows the wall by the heat pump. This shows a number of tenant pictures hanging - and no patched paint work as per the end of tenancy photograph.
It would appear to me that the damage is consistent with the tenant attempting to repair damage at the end of the tenancy – such as when pictures or wall hangings are taken down. I accept that some of the damage could also have been originally caused by door handles and this is what the tenant has also attempted to repair. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am not satisfied that the repair work has been done to an acceptable standard. The wrong colour paint has been used and photographs show that holes have been roughly patched.
The tenant has intentionally repaired the areas and therefore I find this to be intentional damage.
The landlord cannot recover as compensation more than the amount it needs to spend to remedy the problem. A landlord cannot just add up the applicable excesses (here I heard there were 14 x $500) and then claim this sum. If damage is careless, the insurance excess(s) act as a method of capping liability rather than calculating the amount of compensation the tenant is liable for.
The landlord says that the cost of the repair will be $6,633.07. This is supported by a very detailed quote from a tradesperson. That sets out that the work will be done around existing tenants. The landlord says the work will be done once the Tribunal process is finished and that the landlord also has not had the insurer release any funds to her yet. The work will be done around the new tenants.
The landlord says some other work towards getting the house habitable was done already in relation to the walls and doors: the sanding down of some areas was done before new tenants moved in. However, the landlord is unable to provide the details of exactly how much they were charged in relation to that remedial work. This is because this forms part of an invoice that includes some carpet work and kitchen cabinet work (see above).
The landlord says that the quote does not include (because there is no damage for which the tenant is proven liable in these areas) painting the bathroom, toilet or laundry and that the reference to six doors would likely mean the two sides of each of the three damaged doors. I accept this however, the quote does also include for the frames to “each room” to be painted including hallway, kitchen and lounge (undercoat, plus topcoat x 2) but frame damage is not proven for every frame. The tenant is not liable for such additional work.
Further, depreciation must also be taken into account. I accept that this paint work was new at the start of the tenancy. The paint work is presently therefore just over 2 years old.
Taking all of the above into account, I award the landlord the sum of $5,000 in respect of this damage.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord says that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy because it had a strong dog urine smell.
One of the invoices the landlord has provided supports this as it refers to the smell of dog – the landlord says this means dog urine. The landlord first attempted to clean using a shake n vac type product but when that did not work they engaged After Disaster at a cost of $199.99. The landlord undertook this additional cleaning after the new tenants complained about the smell shortly after moving in. The landlord says that some carpet had to be replaced due to the smell but that this has been left off the application in error. An invoice was provided. The ingoing property inspection report records the carpet as new at the start of the tenancy.
In response to this the tenant says that stray dogs and cats in the area would come in and they would wander in and one of the tenants said he “caught” one of them and had to physically hurt one of them to get them out. The tenant says that they tried to remove the smell and thought they had success.
On the basis of the above evidence, I am not satisfied the carpets were left in a reasonably clean condition.
I am satisfied that there was a smell likely left by the various stray animals the tenant referred to coming into the house that required the carpets to be cleaned. This is supported by the oral evidence of the property manager, the invoice for the initial carpet cleaning, the fact that the tenants say that stray animals came into the premises (the tenants did not deny the animals urinating or that there was a smell that they had attempted to remove) and that the new tenants also complained of the smell requiring additional action not long after the tenancy began.
I award the landlord $199.99 for the cleaning by After Disaster.
I make no further award as I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord had to pay the tradesperson to deodorise the carpet on the first occasion as the invoice is not sufficiently clear. Filing fee and suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A RTA).
The tenant seeks name suppression, but the landlord does not.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and I see no other basis upon which to supress their identifying details. I do not award name suppression. Carpet – Application
The landlord wanted to bring a further claim in relation to carpet replacement. This could not be heard with these claims as the tenant had no notice of this claim and did not consent.
The landlord may file a new application to deal with this claim if required.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146108 — net $5,791.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT	$65.00	Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT
Carpet Cleaning	$199.00	Carpet Cleaning
Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess	$500.00	Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess
Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property	$5,000.00	Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,791.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.00

Claims and awards for application 5146108 — net $5,791.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT

Amount: $65.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 December 2025 - BY CONSENT

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $199.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance excess

Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property

Amount: $5,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall/door/door frame repairs throughout property

Filing fee

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No suppression orders apply to this decision.
The landlord may file a further application for carpet replacement if required.
Megan Kay Fletcher and Nelson Kelly Crow must pay Property Brokers Limited, Julia Rozgon (as Trustee for the McCourt and Rozgon Family Trust) $5,791.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties attended the hearing. Both tenants attended as did two representatives of Property Brokers Limited (Property Brokers). They are the property managers for the owner - Ms Rozgon as a trustee for the McCourt and Rozgon Family Trust.

Who is the landlord?

Property Brokers took over the day-to-day management of this tenancy on 1 April 2024. The tenancy was previously managed by a different property management business. At all times the owner has been Ms Rozgon as a trustee of the above named trust. Ms Rozgon is named on the tenancy agreement.
Ms Rozgon herself, as a trustee, was added as a party to the application during the course of the hearing. Her property managers confirmed this as being appropriate and the tenants were also willing.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between tenants and landlords. A property manager can only be an applicant or respondent therefore if they have status as a landlord.
The definition of the landlord in section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) includes an agent “where appropriate”.
Here I find it is appropriate for Property Brokers to be a landlord alongside the owner Ms Rozgon. It transferred the bond into their own name upon taking over the management of the property and conducted all day-to-day management of the tenancy from 1 April 2024.
This follows the approach taken in Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. In that case the District Court noted that the definition in s 2 RTA expressly stipulates that an agent is the “landlord” for the purposes of the obligations in the RTA.
The appeal in that case was from the tenant, who opposed the original order from the Tribunal that the money ordered to be paid by the landlord, only be paid by the owner of the premises as landlord. The tenant wanted the order to be made against the property managers as landlord. The court upheld the appeal and made the order for the property managers to pay the amounts ordered as well as the landlord (owner). Judge Clarke confirmed: For practical purposes, I also note any search of the Tribunal’s decision database will show numerous decisions which record a property manager as a party in Tribunal proceedings, either making claims against tenants or defending them. The property managers are recorded as “agents for a (named) landlord” but not always. What this means then is a property manager must meet the obligations, which are imposed by the RTA on the landlord, as if it was a landlord. When liabilities imposed on the property manager (as agent) the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner and the general agency law, or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something which can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction. What that means is that it is no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner and effectively ignore requests which are made by tenants when obligations under the RTA have been breached. In this instance both property managers have made submissions which attempt to do that. I reject those submissions entirely. As property managers they take on the professional responsibility to ensure compliance is met at all stages...
It follows that if claims can be bought against property managers as landlords, then similarly, as landlords they can also make claims against tenants.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that both Property Brokers and Ms Rozgon as a trustee, are landlords, so they are both able to make this application.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agree that the tenancy has ended and the bond has been released to cover some arrears. The parties agree that the final amount to the end of the tenancy is $65.00. This is ordered by consent.

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 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.
The Tribunal must take 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 says that the tenants caused damage to the walls and three doors at the property and also claimed the tenants damaged a kitchen cabinet with water damage. Kitchen cabinet
I am satisfied that the landlord proved that the kitchen cabinet was water damaged during the course of the tenancy. It is next to the sink.
The tenants say that they reported a leaking tap to the previous property manager but that nothing was done about this. They say the damage was caused by the leaking tap from the start of the tenancy. The tenants say there was an occasion when they did cause a flood when they left a tap on when they were doing the dishes but returned to the lounge. There was no probative evidence of a leaking tap, or prior reports of this.
The landlord says that when Property Managers took over the management of the property there was no issue seen with a tap, the cabinet was still intact, and the issue was not reported to them. I was shown a photograph in an inspection report undertaken by Property Brokers on 30 May 2024 taken shortly after they had taken over. I accept this shows no damage to the cabinet.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was caused by a maintenance issue. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Given the nature of the damage I find it most likely to have been careless damage. An invoice provided shows expenditure of over $1,200 relating to the repair of the kitchen, initial sanding of walls and spraying carpets. I accept that the materials alone for the repair of the cabinet would have exceeded the excess of $500.
I award the landlord the excess of $500.00.
I have not depreciated the repair because I find there has been an improvement to the kitchen as a result of the repair. Walls and doors/frames
The landlord claims for repair work to walls and doors and door frames in the property.
The landlord had evidence of the walls being in good condition at the start of the tenancy. I have no reason to doubt the written comment that the paintwork was new in the living/dining/kitchen and 3 bedrooms.
The landlord had evidence of damage at the end of the tenancy. The photographs suggest the tenants have sought to undertake repairs to specific areas. A report undertaken by an insurance assessor identified numerous areas of damage giving rise to 13 areas of damage which the landlord supported with photographs.
The tenants say that the damage was there when Property Brokers took over and it wasn’t raised then, and the previous property manager did not have an issue with it and that they were never asked to remedy it. They say that some of it is general scuffing and sometimes it related to the handle going into the wall.
Property Brokers say damage was not evident in their inspections and they consider the damage was done towards the end of the tenancy.
I do not find it credible that the repair work was necessarily evident during mid- tenancy inspections with Property Brokers. The previous inspection in November 2024, for example, shows the wall by the heat pump. This shows a number of tenant pictures hanging - and no patched paint work as per the end of tenancy photograph.
It would appear to me that the damage is consistent with the tenant attempting to repair damage at the end of the tenancy – such as when pictures or wall hangings are taken down. I accept that some of the damage could also have been originally caused by door handles and this is what the tenant has also attempted to repair. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am not satisfied that the repair work has been done to an acceptable standard. The wrong colour paint has been used and photographs show that holes have been roughly patched.
The tenant has intentionally repaired the areas and therefore I find this to be intentional damage.
The landlord cannot recover as compensation more than the amount it needs to spend to remedy the problem. A landlord cannot just add up the applicable excesses (here I heard there were 14 x $500) and then claim this sum. If damage is careless, the insurance excess(s) act as a method of capping liability rather than calculating the amount of compensation the tenant is liable for.
The landlord says that the cost of the repair will be $6,633.07. This is supported by a very detailed quote from a tradesperson. That sets out that the work will be done around existing tenants. The landlord says the work will be done once the Tribunal process is finished and that the landlord also has not had the insurer release any funds to her yet. The work will be done around the new tenants.
The landlord says some other work towards getting the house habitable was done already in relation to the walls and doors: the sanding down of some areas was done before new tenants moved in. However, the landlord is unable to provide the details of exactly how much they were charged in relation to that remedial work. This is because this forms part of an invoice that includes some carpet work and kitchen cabinet work (see above).
The landlord says that the quote does not include (because there is no damage for which the tenant is proven liable in these areas) painting the bathroom, toilet or laundry and that the reference to six doors would likely mean the two sides of each of the three damaged doors. I accept this however, the quote does also include for the frames to “each room” to be painted including hallway, kitchen and lounge (undercoat, plus topcoat x 2) but frame damage is not proven for every frame. The tenant is not liable for such additional work.
Further, depreciation must also be taken into account. I accept that this paint work was new at the start of the tenancy. The paint work is presently therefore just over 2 years old.
Taking all of the above into account, I award the landlord the sum of $5,000 in respect of this damage.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord says that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy because it had a strong dog urine smell.
One of the invoices the landlord has provided supports this as it refers to the smell of dog – the landlord says this means dog urine. The landlord first attempted to clean using a shake n vac type product but when that did not work they engaged After Disaster at a cost of $199.99. The landlord undertook this additional cleaning after the new tenants complained about the smell shortly after moving in. The landlord says that some carpet had to be replaced due to the smell but that this has been left off the application in error. An invoice was provided. The ingoing property inspection report records the carpet as new at the start of the tenancy.
In response to this the tenant says that stray dogs and cats in the area would come in and they would wander in and one of the tenants said he “caught” one of them and had to physically hurt one of them to get them out. The tenant says that they tried to remove the smell and thought they had success.
On the basis of the above evidence, I am not satisfied the carpets were left in a reasonably clean condition.
I am satisfied that there was a smell likely left by the various stray animals the tenant referred to coming into the house that required the carpets to be cleaned. This is supported by the oral evidence of the property manager, the invoice for the initial carpet cleaning, the fact that the tenants say that stray animals came into the premises (the tenants did not deny the animals urinating or that there was a smell that they had attempted to remove) and that the new tenants also complained of the smell requiring additional action not long after the tenancy began.
I award the landlord $199.99 for the cleaning by After Disaster.
I make no further award as I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord had to pay the tradesperson to deodorise the carpet on the first occasion as the invoice is not sufficiently clear. Filing fee and suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A RTA).
The tenant seeks name suppression, but the landlord does not.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and I see no other basis upon which to supress their identifying details. I do not award name suppression. Carpet – Application
The landlord wanted to bring a further claim in relation to carpet replacement. This could not be heard with these claims as the tenant had no notice of this claim and did not consent.
The landlord may file a new application to deal with this claim if required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146108 — Property damage at 10 George Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146108 — Property damage at 10 George Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions