What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286559 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 5286559?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286559?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301162-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286559 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 5286559?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286559?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301162-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286559 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286559 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage excess	$1,000.00	Carpet damage excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet damage excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,027.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The tenancy ended on 24 February 2025.
The bond has been refunded in full to the landlord and the landlord advised that it has been partly applied by consent as follows: (a)Lawnmowing - $75.00 (b)Water charges - $332.12 (c)Carpet clean - $350.00
The landlord is holding the balance of the bond being $1042.88.
The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet damage by way of reimbursement of three insurance excesses totalling $3000.00, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: urine damage to the carpet. The landlord stated that the insurance assessor has assessed the damage as three separate events and therefore is seeking reimbursement of three excesses of $1000 totalling $3000 for replacing the carpet in the entire premises.
The tenant has an adult disabled son who wears nappies. The landlord claimed that the premises smelled of urine.
In support of the claim the following written evidence was provided: (a)A carpet clean invoice dated 6 March 2025. No detail regarding the condition of the carpet is included in the invoice. (b)An assessor’s report from the insurance company dated 31 March 2025. The report includes the statement “Policy Response Accepted (Accidental and Sudden)”. The narrative refers to a report of urine smell after the tenants moved out. (c)A quote from [carpet company] for total carpet replacement dated 12 May 2025 in the sum of $4087.59. (d)A copy of a cash settlement from the insurance company dated 16 May 2025 paying the owner $1087.59 in cash settlement after deduction of $3000.00 excess for three separate events. No explanation for three separate events is provided.
The property manager advised that the insurance assessor did not attend the premises to assess the damage.
The property manager advised that the owner had the carpets replaced three weeks ago. No invoice for the actual cost of replacement was provided.
The only direct evidence of the damage was verbal evidence given by the property manager that the premises smelled and that she observed a visual patch on the carpet in the bedroom occupied by the tenant’s son.
The tenant stated that there have been ongoing delays in receiving information from the landlord about this matter following the end of the tenancy. She stated there was damage to the lounge floor during the tenancy as a result of a leak in the kitchen. She stated that the water from the kitchen leak spread under the carpet in the lounge and caused damage.
The property manager confirmed that after the tenancy ended the carpet in the lounge was pulled up to repair the water damaged floor and was not re-laid due to the insurance claim for replacement.
The tenancy agreement states that the insurance excess is $1000.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was urine damage to the carpet in the bedroom occupied by the tenant’s son during the tenancy which is beyond fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove claims for two other incidents of carpet damage as there is evidence of water damage from maintenance issues to the carpet in the lounge and no evidence provided of damage in any other rooms.
As the insurance assessor did not attend the premises there is insufficient evidence regarding how they made an assessment that there were three separate carpet damage events.
Therefore, the Tribunal makes an order for reimbursement of one insurance excess of $1000.00. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. I have considered the factors in this case including the substantial success of the applicant and sensitive personal circumstances of the tenant. I find that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286559 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage excess	$1,000.00	Carpet damage excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet damage excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,027.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The tenancy ended on 24 February 2025.
The bond has been refunded in full to the landlord and the landlord advised that it has been partly applied by consent as follows: (a)Lawnmowing - $75.00 (b)Water charges - $332.12 (c)Carpet clean - $350.00
The landlord is holding the balance of the bond being $1042.88.
The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet damage by way of reimbursement of three insurance excesses totalling $3000.00, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: urine damage to the carpet. The landlord stated that the insurance assessor has assessed the damage as three separate events and therefore is seeking reimbursement of three excesses of $1000 totalling $3000 for replacing the carpet in the entire premises.
The tenant has an adult disabled son who wears nappies. The landlord claimed that the premises smelled of urine.
In support of the claim the following written evidence was provided: (a)A carpet clean invoice dated 6 March 2025. No detail regarding the condition of the carpet is included in the invoice. (b)An assessor’s report from the insurance company dated 31 March 2025. The report includes the statement “Policy Response Accepted (Accidental and Sudden)”. The narrative refers to a report of urine smell after the tenants moved out. (c)A quote from [carpet company] for total carpet replacement dated 12 May 2025 in the sum of $4087.59. (d)A copy of a cash settlement from the insurance company dated 16 May 2025 paying the owner $1087.59 in cash settlement after deduction of $3000.00 excess for three separate events. No explanation for three separate events is provided.
The property manager advised that the insurance assessor did not attend the premises to assess the damage.
The property manager advised that the owner had the carpets replaced three weeks ago. No invoice for the actual cost of replacement was provided.
The only direct evidence of the damage was verbal evidence given by the property manager that the premises smelled and that she observed a visual patch on the carpet in the bedroom occupied by the tenant’s son.
The tenant stated that there have been ongoing delays in receiving information from the landlord about this matter following the end of the tenancy. She stated there was damage to the lounge floor during the tenancy as a result of a leak in the kitchen. She stated that the water from the kitchen leak spread under the carpet in the lounge and caused damage.
The property manager confirmed that after the tenancy ended the carpet in the lounge was pulled up to repair the water damaged floor and was not re-laid due to the insurance claim for replacement.
The tenancy agreement states that the insurance excess is $1000.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was urine damage to the carpet in the bedroom occupied by the tenant’s son during the tenancy which is beyond fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove claims for two other incidents of carpet damage as there is evidence of water damage from maintenance issues to the carpet in the lounge and no evidence provided of damage in any other rooms.
As the insurance assessor did not attend the premises there is insufficient evidence regarding how they made an assessment that there were three separate carpet damage events.
Therefore, the Tribunal makes an order for reimbursement of one insurance excess of $1000.00. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. I have considered the factors in this case including the substantial success of the applicant and sensitive personal circumstances of the tenant. I find that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286559 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286559 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions