What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429004 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5429004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429004?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13753367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429004 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5429004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429004?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13753367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429004 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The parties have resolved all matters in their applications at mediation, except for the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet.

In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord’s and tenant’s evidence

The landlord provided the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. Three photographs of faint red staining to grey carpet. The landlord claimed that these photographs were of three separate areas of staining. b. Evidence of the landlord’s application to their insurer for “2 x red stains on carpet by tenant. Tenant has tried to remove with a carpet cleaning company and has not removed.” c. The carpet was only eleven months old at the end of the tenancy. d. The landlord claimed that there was also damage from pet urine that caused an odour that took time to remove. e. The carpet has not been replaced. f. The premises have been relet and the new tenant has not complained of any issue with odour.

The tenant confirmed that: a. There were stains in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. b. She had the carpets commercially cleaned the day after the end of the tenancy. c. There remained a small area of faint staining in one area. Discussion and decision

On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has damaged the carpet requiring its replacement for the following reasons: a. From the landlord’s insurance claim, there were only two small areas of staining. The photographic evidence shows only the faintest traces of staining that are barely discernible. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the carpet requires replacement for such a small and minor area of damage. b. The landlord has failed to prove that they have suffered loss. The carpet has not been replaced, the excess has not been paid and the Tribunal has no evidence that the insurance claim has been accepted. The premises have been relet and there is no evidence that the damage has required them to be relet at a lesser rent. c. The landlord has not provided evidence that a professional carpet cleaner has determined that the stains cannot be removed, nor that the areas cannot be remedied by a carpet patch. The Tribunal is not therefore persuaded that because of the tenant’s damage, the carpet needs to be replaced. d. From the landlord’s insurance claim and the successful reletting of the premises, the animal urine damage has not formed any part of the basis for the landlord’s claim. It has not been relevant to the Tribunal’s determination.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $837.37 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The parties have resolved all matters in their applications at mediation, except for the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet.
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord’s and tenant’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. Three photographs of faint red staining to grey carpet. The landlord claimed that these photographs were of three separate areas of staining. b. Evidence of the landlord’s application to their insurer for “2 x red stains on carpet by tenant. Tenant has tried to remove with a carpet cleaning company and has not removed.” c. The carpet was only eleven months old at the end of the tenancy. d. The landlord claimed that there was also damage from pet urine that caused an odour that took time to remove. e. The carpet has not been replaced. f. The premises have been relet and the new tenant has not complained of any issue with odour.
The tenant confirmed that: a. There were stains in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. b. She had the carpets commercially cleaned the day after the end of the tenancy. c. There remained a small area of faint staining in one area. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has damaged the carpet requiring its replacement for the following reasons: a. From the landlord’s insurance claim, there were only two small areas of staining. The photographic evidence shows only the faintest traces of staining that are barely discernible. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the carpet requires replacement for such a small and minor area of damage. b. The landlord has failed to prove that they have suffered loss. The carpet has not been replaced, the excess has not been paid and the Tribunal has no evidence that the insurance claim has been accepted. The premises have been relet and there is no evidence that the damage has required them to be relet at a lesser rent. c. The landlord has not provided evidence that a professional carpet cleaner has determined that the stains cannot be removed, nor that the areas cannot be remedied by a carpet patch. The Tribunal is not therefore persuaded that because of the tenant’s damage, the carpet needs to be replaced. d. From the landlord’s insurance claim and the successful reletting of the premises, the animal urine damage has not formed any part of the basis for the landlord’s claim. It has not been relevant to the Tribunal’s determination.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429004 — Cleanliness at 22 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429004 — Cleanliness at 22 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions