What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352042 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 5352042?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352042?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12769765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352042 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 5352042?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352042?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12769765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352042 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via videoconference.

The landlord sought compensation for vacated costs pertaining to carpet, wallpaper, and water damage.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” [emphasis added]

The landlord provided a letter from the owner’s insurer accepting six claims and the exit inspection report and photos. There was limited evidence provided beyond these. Orders sought

There were three main claims of the landlord, seeking six insurance excesses: Wallpaper was ripped such that repapering was required in a bedroom and hallway

The wallpaper was estimated at approximately 30 years of age based on the photos provided. There was evidence of wallpaper failing with strips peeling off. One strip was assisted along the way by the tenants’ toddler.

The tenants offered to repair that area, but the owner wanted the entire room redone. Given the age of the paper a spot repair would be difficult without some spare wallpaper available.

The wallpaper is considered of such an age that appropriate depreciation would reduce the residual value to little or none. It is open to me to decide that no loss occurred as the wallpaper was beyond its economic life. If the tenants had done nothing, some compensation at the lower end to reflect some further possible life may have been appropriate but not certain.

What was the landlord’s loss here, if one is proven? The guiding principle in such claims is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the landlord in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation for careless or intentional damage is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.

However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and the Tribunal’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through compensation. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment applies. This essentially limits an applicant’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.

I do not consider the wallpaper had any residual value and the claim for compensation is dismissed. Carpet was damaged beyond repair in the main bedroom, living room, and third bedroom.

The carpets presented as dirty in the exit photos. This was accepted by the tenants and the agent had arranged a carpet cleaning quote for this to be done. The owner declined any carpet cleaning, considering the carpet was beyond cleaning. That is not certain based on the evidence at hand.

In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: a. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

In this case, I consider the owner failed to take the responsible step as proposed and costed by their agent, being have a commercial carpet clean completed in the first instance.

The tenants had agreed to the cost.

In a letter to their agent, the owner writes: “Carpet, yes I am claiming on the carpet as some of the stains are like glue, they are stuborn and have dried out. The loss adjuster has also said that these stains may not come off in cleaning, so I will claim on it.”

I consider the advancing of carpet replacement was the desired path of the owner. That was their prerogative but in the absence of a carpet clean of what was at least four-year-old carpet I consider that choice, and cost, stays with the owner as mitigation via carpet cleaning was open to attempting. The owner failed to mitigate their loss.

Even if I am wrong, there is no evidence beyond a cash settlement by the insurer at indemnity value of any actual carpet replacement and consequential loss.

The claim is dismissed. Water damage in the laundry.

The cause of damage was not identified by the adjuster in their report, requiring the owner to provide such evidence. The damage was classed as hidden gradual damage and neither the tenants nor agent were aware of the damage starting under the washing machine.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

I find the landlord has not established any tenant careless or intentional action that led to the gradual water damage. This is a cost that remains with the landlord

The claim is dismissed. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants requested their suppression at the hearing. As the landlord application has been dismissed, tenant details suppression is appropriate and ordered.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via videoconference.

The landlord sought compensation for vacated costs pertaining to carpet, wallpaper, and water damage.

The landlord provided a letter from the owner’s insurer accepting six claims and the exit inspection report and photos. There was limited evidence provided beyond these. Orders sought

There were three main claims of the landlord, seeking six insurance excesses: Wallpaper was ripped such that repapering was required in a bedroom and hallway

The tenants offered to repair that area, but the owner wanted the entire room redone. Given the age of the paper a spot repair would be difficult without some spare wallpaper available.

I do not consider the wallpaper had any residual value and the claim for compensation is dismissed. Carpet was damaged beyond repair in the main bedroom, living room, and third bedroom.

In this case, I consider the owner failed to take the responsible step as proposed and costed by their agent, being have a commercial carpet clean completed in the first instance.

The tenants had agreed to the cost.

Even if I am wrong, there is no evidence beyond a cash settlement by the insurer at indemnity value of any actual carpet replacement and consequential loss.

The claim is dismissed. Water damage in the laundry.

I find the landlord has not established any tenant careless or intentional action that led to the gradual water damage. This is a cost that remains with the landlord

The claim is dismissed. Suppression

The tenants requested their suppression at the hearing. As the landlord application has been dismissed, tenant details suppression is appropriate and ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352042 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352042 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions