What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187832 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 5187832?

Compensation: Vacant Possession: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187832 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 5187832?

Compensation: Vacant Possession: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187832?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Whitford Brown Avenue, Aotea, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187832 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187832 — net $2,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond paid and not lodged	$2,600.00	Bond paid and not lodged
Compensation: vacant possession	$200.00	vacant possession
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,827.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Geraldine Huntington and Peter Huntington must pay [The tenant/s] $2,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy lasted about a year and a half and the tenants moved out in February 2025. They filed an application because they want their bond refunded. They are also concerned that they did not get vacant possession and there were some maintenance issues during the tenancy. The landlord has applied for compensation because of damaged carpet and refund of the bond. It is agreed evidence the tenants paid $2600 as a bond and this was never lodged with the Bond Centre, as is required section 19 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (RTA).

Have the parties contracted back into the RTA?

There is a preliminary issue which is whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, ... continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
One of the tenants is a niece, and therefore a member of the landlord’s family. However, the parties signed a brief tenancy agreement, and they have both filed applications with the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord said at the hearing they intended the RTA to apply to the living arrangement. Section 8 RTA allows parties to contract back into the RTA if the premises are used for residential purposes.
The tenants were renting a house and paying rent. The District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC 12810 rejected the argument that section 8 RTA requires a provision written into the tenancy agreement specifically referring to intention. I find the parties have contracted back into the RTA, and I can decide the applications.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the insurance excess for replacement carpet in the house and in a unit that was rented to another family member. I find the claims against these tenants can only be for the house. The claim for replacement carpet is accordingly limited to five rooms in the house, and the excess claimed is $500 a room. The claim is because of a smell of dog urine.
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.
The insurance claim was submitted on the basis that there was an unbearable smell of dog urine in the house. An assessor came and the claim was accepted, presumably because of a smell. The tenants do not agree the carpets smelled when they moved out. They used a rug doctor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. They also said the carpet was old and stained when they moved in. I am more persuaded by landlord’s submission because of the supporting emails from the insurer. I find there was a smell at the end of the tenancy.
I am required to consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants 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.
It is agreed evidence the carpet was at least 10 years old and in a worn condition. The useful lifespan of carpet in a rental property is estimated to be 8 years in the IR265 – 2020 at page 36. I find the tenants do not have to pay for replacement carpet because any payment would mean paying for an improvement. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the RTA?

The claims the landlord breached the duty to repair and maintain are dismissed. The tenants did not tell the landlord about the hot water problem in the kitchen, the ants, or the need for additional cleaning in the shower at the start of the tenancy. They asked to keep the old carpet because of their dogs. I find there was no breach of section 45 RTA and these claims are dismissed.
I find there was a breach of the duty to provide vacant possession. Section 37 RTA requires the landlord to provide vacant possession on the date the tenancy commences. Vacant possession includes being free from the landlord’s belongings if the tenancy is not a furnished tenancy. See Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009.
It is agreed evidence the landlord left belongings in one of the bedrooms. The tenants took two half days to pack the belongings and transport them to the landlord. I find the tenants should have $200 compensation for loss of time and inconvenience. Other orders
The bond is to be paid to the tenants.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187832 — net $2,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond paid and not lodged	$2,600.00	Bond paid and not lodged
Compensation: vacant possession	$200.00	vacant possession
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,827.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Geraldine Huntington and Peter Huntington must pay [The tenant/s] $2,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy lasted about a year and a half and the tenants moved out in February 2025. They filed an application because they want their bond refunded. They are also concerned that they did not get vacant possession and there were some maintenance issues during the tenancy. The landlord has applied for compensation because of damaged carpet and refund of the bond. It is agreed evidence the tenants paid $2600 as a bond and this was never lodged with the Bond Centre, as is required section 19 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (RTA).

Have the parties contracted back into the RTA?

There is a preliminary issue which is whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, ... continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
One of the tenants is a niece, and therefore a member of the landlord’s family. However, the parties signed a brief tenancy agreement, and they have both filed applications with the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord said at the hearing they intended the RTA to apply to the living arrangement. Section 8 RTA allows parties to contract back into the RTA if the premises are used for residential purposes.
The tenants were renting a house and paying rent. The District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC 12810 rejected the argument that section 8 RTA requires a provision written into the tenancy agreement specifically referring to intention. I find the parties have contracted back into the RTA, and I can decide the applications.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the insurance excess for replacement carpet in the house and in a unit that was rented to another family member. I find the claims against these tenants can only be for the house. The claim for replacement carpet is accordingly limited to five rooms in the house, and the excess claimed is $500 a room. The claim is because of a smell of dog urine.
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.
The insurance claim was submitted on the basis that there was an unbearable smell of dog urine in the house. An assessor came and the claim was accepted, presumably because of a smell. The tenants do not agree the carpets smelled when they moved out. They used a rug doctor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. They also said the carpet was old and stained when they moved in. I am more persuaded by landlord’s submission because of the supporting emails from the insurer. I find there was a smell at the end of the tenancy.
I am required to consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants 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.
It is agreed evidence the carpet was at least 10 years old and in a worn condition. The useful lifespan of carpet in a rental property is estimated to be 8 years in the IR265 – 2020 at page 36. I find the tenants do not have to pay for replacement carpet because any payment would mean paying for an improvement. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the RTA?

The claims the landlord breached the duty to repair and maintain are dismissed. The tenants did not tell the landlord about the hot water problem in the kitchen, the ants, or the need for additional cleaning in the shower at the start of the tenancy. They asked to keep the old carpet because of their dogs. I find there was no breach of section 45 RTA and these claims are dismissed.
I find there was a breach of the duty to provide vacant possession. Section 37 RTA requires the landlord to provide vacant possession on the date the tenancy commences. Vacant possession includes being free from the landlord’s belongings if the tenancy is not a furnished tenancy. See Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009.
It is agreed evidence the landlord left belongings in one of the bedrooms. The tenants took two half days to pack the belongings and transport them to the landlord. I find the tenants should have $200 compensation for loss of time and inconvenience. Other orders
The bond is to be paid to the tenants.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187832 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Whitford Brown Avenue, Aotea, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187832 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Whitford Brown Avenue, Aotea, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the parties contracted back into the RTA?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the parties contracted back into the RTA?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions