What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208351?

The tribunal order states: Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes to pay Carol Hocking

How much money was awarded in case 5208351?

Carpet Patch: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923558-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208351?

The tribunal order states: Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes to pay Carol Hocking

How much money was awarded in case 5208351?

Carpet Patch: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923558-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Mersey Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208351 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208351 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet patch	$200.00	Carpet patch
Curtain replacement	$300.00	Curtain replacement
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$1,270.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes to pay Carol Hocking $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,270.00 (3459570-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Carol Hocking: $500.00 Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes: $770.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

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

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 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 landlord claims for the patching of a carpet in the lounge and replacement curtains in a bedroom.

I accept that the damage to both of these occurred during the tenancy. There was no indication of a stain on the carpet in the pre-entry inspection report and a photo taken the day after the tenancy ended shows a significant stain.

The curtains in the bedroom were new at the beginning of the tenancy and a photo taken the day after the tenancy ended shows what appears to be a burn in the curtain.

I also accept that a reasonable way of repairing the carpet was to patch it, given that the tenants’ attempt to clean the carpet did not remove the stain. The amount would be less than any insurance excess available, if the landlord was insured for this damage.

I also accept that both curtains needed to be replaced so that they would match.

In awarding $300.00 for replacement curtains, 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.

Again, any insurance excess payable would be greater than this amount. Smoke alarms

The landlord also makes a claim for the replacement of 2 smoke alarms.

I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim for reasons that include: (a) After the tenancy ended the landlord advised the tenants that 2 smoke alarms were missing. The tenants advised the landlord where they could be located; and (b) There was no evidence that these were not located, although at the hearing the landlord stated that they were located but they were not working; and (c) There was no evidence provided that at that time they weren’t working; and (d) The smoke alarms were replaced 6 months after the tenancy ended. Filing fee reimbursement and suppression of name

I am not ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was not wholly, or even substantially, successful in the claim.

For the same reason I am not allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of her name. C ter Haar 03 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208351 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet patch	$200.00	Carpet patch
Curtain replacement	$300.00	Curtain replacement
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$1,270.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes to pay Carol Hocking $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,270.00 (3459570-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Carol Hocking: $500.00 Angela Margaret Evans and Matthew Simon Noyes: $770.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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 landlord claims for the patching of a carpet in the lounge and replacement curtains in a bedroom.
I accept that the damage to both of these occurred during the tenancy. There was no indication of a stain on the carpet in the pre-entry inspection report and a photo taken the day after the tenancy ended shows a significant stain.
The curtains in the bedroom were new at the beginning of the tenancy and a photo taken the day after the tenancy ended shows what appears to be a burn in the curtain.
I also accept that a reasonable way of repairing the carpet was to patch it, given that the tenants’ attempt to clean the carpet did not remove the stain. The amount would be less than any insurance excess available, if the landlord was insured for this damage.
I also accept that both curtains needed to be replaced so that they would match.
In awarding $300.00 for replacement curtains, 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.
Again, any insurance excess payable would be greater than this amount. Smoke alarms
The landlord also makes a claim for the replacement of 2 smoke alarms.
I am dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim for reasons that include: (a) After the tenancy ended the landlord advised the tenants that 2 smoke alarms were missing. The tenants advised the landlord where they could be located; and (b) There was no evidence that these were not located, although at the hearing the landlord stated that they were located but they were not working; and (c) There was no evidence provided that at that time they weren’t working; and (d) The smoke alarms were replaced 6 months after the tenancy ended. Filing fee reimbursement and suppression of name
I am not ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was not wholly, or even substantially, successful in the claim.
For the same reason I am not allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of her name. C ter Haar 03 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208351 — Property damage at 9 Mersey Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208351 — Property damage at 9 Mersey Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions