What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409509 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 5409509?

Compensation: $1,550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13379549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409509 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 5409509?

Compensation: $1,550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13379549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

618B Pukehina Parade, Pukehina, Pukehina 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409509 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

618B Pukehina Parade, Pukehina, Pukehina 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409509 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409509 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,550.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,578.00

Claims and awards for application 5409509 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $1,550.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,578.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,578.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Bop Beach Rentals 2023 Limited As Agent For Adam Bradley Sara Davidson must pay [The tenant/s] $1,778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In early 2023, the tenant detected staining on the carpet and declared this to the property manager. The property manager liaised with the owner and subsequently advised the tenant that she was required to pay $1,250 for replacement of the carpet.
At that time, a different property manager was managing the property. The property manager representing the owner at today’s hearing stated that an investigation was undertaken. A photograph of the staining was provided to the owner’s insurer, which determined that the carpet was fully depreciated and declined to fund replacement. The insurer assessed the carpet’s value at $1,726.58, applied an excess of $1,250.00, and paid the owner $476.58.
The tenant was then charged $1,250.00, being the amount of the insurance excess, and paid this sum.
The tenant states that she paid the amount without significant consideration at the time, but subsequently queried the charge at the end of the tenancy. She now submits that the $1,250.00 was incorrectly charged and seeks a refund of that amount, together with exemplary damages.
Staining to carpet of this nature is, in general, consistent with fair wear and tear. The photographic evidence shows the carpet to be in generally good condition, with a single visible stain. It is expected that some degree of wear, damage, or staining will occur during the course of a tenancy, particularly over a period of approximately five years.
A landlord may reasonably require a tenant to remedy such staining through cleaning, including professional carpet cleaning if necessary. However, replacement of carpet would only be justified in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances are present here. The stain appears to be approximately 30-40 centimetres in length and about 10 centimetres in width, and does not justify full replacement of the carpet. It could be described as mild staining.
Further, where tenant damage is established, the Tribunal must take into account issues of depreciation and betterment. The insurer’s assessment confirms that the carpet was fully depreciated. Accordingly, even if replacement had been required, the tenant would not have been liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.
There were therefore no proper grounds for the landlord to charge the tenant for the insurance excess, or to retain that amount once it had been paid. I note that the property manager initially indicated that the owner had not received the funds, but subsequently, upon reviewing records admitted that they did but declined to refund the amount on the basis that it was the tenant’s liability. That position is not supported.
The sum of $1,250.00 must be refunded to the tenant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the conduct may have been intentional and not in good faith. However, in order to award exemplary damages, the relevant cause of action must have arisen within the applicable statutory timeframe. In this case, the events occurred more than 12 months prior to the application. Accordingly, exemplary damages are not available.
I consider it appropriate to award the tenant compensation of $300 for the loss of use of the $1,250 during the relevant period.
I also note that the landlord retained the funds but did not undertake any repair or replacement of the carpet.
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have awarded the filing fee and granted their application for suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409509 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,550.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,578.00

Claims and awards for application 5409509 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $1,550.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,578.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,578.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Bop Beach Rentals 2023 Limited As Agent For Adam Bradley Sara Davidson must pay [The tenant/s] $1,778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In early 2023, the tenant detected staining on the carpet and declared this to the property manager. The property manager liaised with the owner and subsequently advised the tenant that she was required to pay $1,250 for replacement of the carpet.
At that time, a different property manager was managing the property. The property manager representing the owner at today’s hearing stated that an investigation was undertaken. A photograph of the staining was provided to the owner’s insurer, which determined that the carpet was fully depreciated and declined to fund replacement. The insurer assessed the carpet’s value at $1,726.58, applied an excess of $1,250.00, and paid the owner $476.58.
The tenant was then charged $1,250.00, being the amount of the insurance excess, and paid this sum.
The tenant states that she paid the amount without significant consideration at the time, but subsequently queried the charge at the end of the tenancy. She now submits that the $1,250.00 was incorrectly charged and seeks a refund of that amount, together with exemplary damages.
Staining to carpet of this nature is, in general, consistent with fair wear and tear. The photographic evidence shows the carpet to be in generally good condition, with a single visible stain. It is expected that some degree of wear, damage, or staining will occur during the course of a tenancy, particularly over a period of approximately five years.
A landlord may reasonably require a tenant to remedy such staining through cleaning, including professional carpet cleaning if necessary. However, replacement of carpet would only be justified in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances are present here. The stain appears to be approximately 30-40 centimetres in length and about 10 centimetres in width, and does not justify full replacement of the carpet. It could be described as mild staining.
Further, where tenant damage is established, the Tribunal must take into account issues of depreciation and betterment. The insurer’s assessment confirms that the carpet was fully depreciated. Accordingly, even if replacement had been required, the tenant would not have been liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.
There were therefore no proper grounds for the landlord to charge the tenant for the insurance excess, or to retain that amount once it had been paid. I note that the property manager initially indicated that the owner had not received the funds, but subsequently, upon reviewing records admitted that they did but declined to refund the amount on the basis that it was the tenant’s liability. That position is not supported.
The sum of $1,250.00 must be refunded to the tenant.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the conduct may have been intentional and not in good faith. However, in order to award exemplary damages, the relevant cause of action must have arisen within the applicable statutory timeframe. In this case, the events occurred more than 12 months prior to the application. Accordingly, exemplary damages are not available.
I consider it appropriate to award the tenant compensation of $300 for the loss of use of the $1,250 during the relevant period.
I also note that the landlord retained the funds but did not undertake any repair or replacement of the carpet.
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in their application I have awarded the filing fee and granted their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409509 — Tenancy dispute at 618B Pukehina Parade, Pukehina, Pukehina 3189

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409509 — Tenancy dispute at 618B Pukehina Parade, Pukehina, Pukehina 3189

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions