What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281863 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 5281863?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281863?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281863 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 5281863?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281863?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281863 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281863 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for replacement carpet	$1,500.00	Insurance excess for replacement carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
Guojun Tang and Yanran Chen to pay [The landlord/s] $1,527.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,527.00 Guojun Tang and Yanran Chen: $773.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
This tenancy was in a brand new apartment. The tenants lived there with their cat for just over a year and half. The parties have not been able to agree on the refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants want the bond refunded to them, and they are also concerned that the landlords did not sign the tenancy agreement and kept changing the costs in the discussions after the tenants moved out. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the landlords proved there was damage to the carpets? • Should the tenants pay for the bench repair? • Should the tenants pay to repair the intercom? • Should I allow exemplary damages? • Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords? • Should I allow suppression?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for $1,500 for the insurance excesses to replace the carpet, $500 for the insurance excess for repairing a Formica bench, and $164.68 for the cost of repairing the intercom. The tenants only agree to pay $250 as a contribution towards the bench repair.
Landlords 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 carpet
I accept the landlord’s evidence this was a new apartment with new carpet when the tenants moved in. The landlords detected a smell of cat urine when they completed the final inspection. They had a technician from Chemdry inspect the apartment and use a UV light to identify cat urine. The landlords took a video of this process which was played at the hearing. The man from Chemdry said he could smell cat urine when he entered the apartment. He said the UV light identified cat urine in the lounge, hall, and bedroom. The landlords were given a quote for more than $1200 for lifting the carpet and treating the affected areas, and there was no guarantee the treatment would eliminate the smell. The insurer paid out on a claim and replacement carpet was laid. I was provided with supporting evidence which I am persuaded shows the landlord had to pay a $500 excess for each room that had damage.
The tenants said their cat is well trained and did not urinate on the floor. They said the science for the UV light showing marks is not proved. They said other substances, such and dairy or some chemical residue from cleaning products could also show up under the UV light. They also noted that there were no UV light photos from the start of the tenancy, so the landlords cannot prove the damage was from their cat.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by their evidence. I find the evidence from the Chemdry technician on the video, who said he could smell cat urine when he entered the apartment, to be persuasive. It seems most likely to me the cat damaged the carpet during the tenancy, and this was more than fair wear and tear. I find the decision to replace the carpets was reasonable. I am persuaded there was a lack of care by the tenants. This means the tenants should pay the insurance excesses paid by the landlord to have the carpet replaced. The bench
The landlords said the benchtop, which was also brand new, was damaged by knife marks and by a small burn about the size of a fingernail. The tenants did not agree there were knife marks. They did agree they burnt a hole in the benchtop. The tenants usually protected the bench with a cloth, but on this occasion they did not. They reported the damage to the landlords at the time. Throughout the negotiations the tenants have offered to pay half the costs of repairs. The landlords claimed on insurance and paid a $500 excess, which is less than the cost of repair.
This is the landlords’ claim to prove. They had not provided any photos showing knife damage. The repairer’s invoice only mentions the burn. It seems most likely to me that the only damage on the bench at the end of the tenancy was the one small burn. It seems most likely to me the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded the tenants acted carelessly when the damage happened, and I am not persuaded they acted intentionally either. This is because the damage is limited to one small piece of the bench after just one incident. I find the landlords have not proved this claim and it is dismissed. The intercom
There is a claim for repairs to the intercom. This was not working at the end of the tenancy because it had been unplugged. The tenants said they did nothing to the intercom. The communications box controlling the intercom was in the bedroom. There are four leads inside the box. The invoice states the new patch lead is now labelled “not to be unplugged”. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. It seems unlikely there would have been a mix up if the intercom port was already labelled do not unplug. Even if the tenants did unplug the intercom I am not persuaded this was done carelessly or intentionally. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Should I allow exemplary damages?

The landlords have claimed exemplary damages because of breaches by the tenants. Exemplary damages are like a penalty and apply to some, but not all, breaches of the RTA. Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the damage claims I have dealt with today. This claim is dismissed.

Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords?

The tenants claimed there was a breach because they were not provided with a signed tenancy agreement. I have read the documents. I find there was a written tenancy agreement and the parties agreed to rent the tenancy over a series of emails. I find this was not a breach of the RTA.
The tenants claimed the landlords did not provide itemised costs after the end of the tenancy and their costs and claims kept changing. From the emails I accept the landlord did change their position many times and that made it hard for the tenants to negotiate. However, it is not unusual for costs and claims to change after the end of a tenancy. I do not find there was a breach by the landlords.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed. Other orders
The bond will be refunded as ordered. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlords have wholly substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when there is damage by a pet during a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281863 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for replacement carpet	$1,500.00	Insurance excess for replacement carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
Guojun Tang and Yanran Chen to pay [The landlord/s] $1,527.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,527.00 Guojun Tang and Yanran Chen: $773.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
This tenancy was in a brand new apartment. The tenants lived there with their cat for just over a year and half. The parties have not been able to agree on the refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants want the bond refunded to them, and they are also concerned that the landlords did not sign the tenancy agreement and kept changing the costs in the discussions after the tenants moved out. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the landlords proved there was damage to the carpets? • Should the tenants pay for the bench repair? • Should the tenants pay to repair the intercom? • Should I allow exemplary damages? • Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords? • Should I allow suppression?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for $1,500 for the insurance excesses to replace the carpet, $500 for the insurance excess for repairing a Formica bench, and $164.68 for the cost of repairing the intercom. The tenants only agree to pay $250 as a contribution towards the bench repair.
Landlords 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 carpet
I accept the landlord’s evidence this was a new apartment with new carpet when the tenants moved in. The landlords detected a smell of cat urine when they completed the final inspection. They had a technician from Chemdry inspect the apartment and use a UV light to identify cat urine. The landlords took a video of this process which was played at the hearing. The man from Chemdry said he could smell cat urine when he entered the apartment. He said the UV light identified cat urine in the lounge, hall, and bedroom. The landlords were given a quote for more than $1200 for lifting the carpet and treating the affected areas, and there was no guarantee the treatment would eliminate the smell. The insurer paid out on a claim and replacement carpet was laid. I was provided with supporting evidence which I am persuaded shows the landlord had to pay a $500 excess for each room that had damage.
The tenants said their cat is well trained and did not urinate on the floor. They said the science for the UV light showing marks is not proved. They said other substances, such and dairy or some chemical residue from cleaning products could also show up under the UV light. They also noted that there were no UV light photos from the start of the tenancy, so the landlords cannot prove the damage was from their cat.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by their evidence. I find the evidence from the Chemdry technician on the video, who said he could smell cat urine when he entered the apartment, to be persuasive. It seems most likely to me the cat damaged the carpet during the tenancy, and this was more than fair wear and tear. I find the decision to replace the carpets was reasonable. I am persuaded there was a lack of care by the tenants. This means the tenants should pay the insurance excesses paid by the landlord to have the carpet replaced. The bench
The landlords said the benchtop, which was also brand new, was damaged by knife marks and by a small burn about the size of a fingernail. The tenants did not agree there were knife marks. They did agree they burnt a hole in the benchtop. The tenants usually protected the bench with a cloth, but on this occasion they did not. They reported the damage to the landlords at the time. Throughout the negotiations the tenants have offered to pay half the costs of repairs. The landlords claimed on insurance and paid a $500 excess, which is less than the cost of repair.
This is the landlords’ claim to prove. They had not provided any photos showing knife damage. The repairer’s invoice only mentions the burn. It seems most likely to me that the only damage on the bench at the end of the tenancy was the one small burn. It seems most likely to me the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded the tenants acted carelessly when the damage happened, and I am not persuaded they acted intentionally either. This is because the damage is limited to one small piece of the bench after just one incident. I find the landlords have not proved this claim and it is dismissed. The intercom
There is a claim for repairs to the intercom. This was not working at the end of the tenancy because it had been unplugged. The tenants said they did nothing to the intercom. The communications box controlling the intercom was in the bedroom. There are four leads inside the box. The invoice states the new patch lead is now labelled “not to be unplugged”. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. It seems unlikely there would have been a mix up if the intercom port was already labelled do not unplug. Even if the tenants did unplug the intercom I am not persuaded this was done carelessly or intentionally. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Should I allow exemplary damages?

The landlords have claimed exemplary damages because of breaches by the tenants. Exemplary damages are like a penalty and apply to some, but not all, breaches of the RTA. Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the damage claims I have dealt with today. This claim is dismissed.

Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords?

The tenants claimed there was a breach because they were not provided with a signed tenancy agreement. I have read the documents. I find there was a written tenancy agreement and the parties agreed to rent the tenancy over a series of emails. I find this was not a breach of the RTA.
The tenants claimed the landlords did not provide itemised costs after the end of the tenancy and their costs and claims kept changing. From the emails I accept the landlord did change their position many times and that made it hard for the tenants to negotiate. However, it is not unusual for costs and claims to change after the end of a tenancy. I do not find there was a breach by the landlords.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed. Other orders
The bond will be refunded as ordered. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlords have wholly substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when there is damage by a pet during a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281863 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281863 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should I allow exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should I allow exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved there were breaches by the landlords?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions