What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4517789?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the

How much money was awarded in case 4517789?

Compensation: $1,270.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $851.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4517789?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4517789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9269242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4517789?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the

How much money was awarded in case 4517789?

Compensation: $1,270.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $851.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4517789?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4517789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9269242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 90 Swaffield Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4517789 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4517789 — net $342.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet - compensation	$1,270.75	Carpet - compensation
Repairs to cooktop	$851.00	Repairs to cooktop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$342.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$342.19

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the tenants have not been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Joseph Hay and Fransalina Anthony Manuel must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $342.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6389366-001) to Street Smart Property Management Limited immediately.
The tenants’ application (4542129) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Knight and Ms Redmond appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 4 December 2020 and ended on 26 December 2022. The rent is $450.00 per week and a bond of $1,800.00 was paid. The tenancy agreement records Mr Hay as the tenant, although both Mr Hay and Ms Anthony Manuel signed the tenancy agreement. The bond is in the name of both Mr Hay and Ms Anthony Manuel. The parties agree that both ought to be regarded as the tenants, and the parties’ names are amended accordingly above.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the carpet and cooktop, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 4517789. While noted in the application, the landlord has clarified that it does not seek exemplary damages. The landlord also no longer seeks compensation for damage to the walls.
The tenants have applied for a return of their bond of $1,800.00 (application number 4542129). General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
In this case, the landlord became aware of the damage after August 2019, therefore, the amended provisions will apply.
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) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $250.00. The rent for this premises is $450.00 per week.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including the relevant invoices), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to carpet in the living room, hallway and bedroom • Damage to cooktop The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. These claims are discussed in detail below. Carpet
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of the carpet in the living room, hallway and one of the bedrooms. Photographs have been produced, which show red staining on the carpet, together with a detailed inspection report completed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence is that professional carpet cleaners were unable to remove the stains. The carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The premises was newly built, with a Code Compliance Certificate being issued on 22 October 2020. The insurance excess is $250.00 per event. The landlord’s evidence is that the insurer has advised that with the excess being applied to each event, the excess was well over $8,000.00. The total cost of replacing the carpet for the three areas is $1,955.00. An invoice for the supply and installation of the carpet from Gerrard Enterprises has been produced.
The tenants’ evidence is that their one year old child spilt blackcurrant juice on the carpet and the stains were accidental. They state that this occurred on two occasions. They also tried to remove the stains by paying for the carpet to be professionally cleaned, but the stains remained. They accept that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but do not agree that it ought to be replaced. They felt that the areas where there was staining could be patched up.
The question of whether a tenant can be held liable where the damage was caused by a child has previously been considered in the District Court and by the Tribunal. For example, in the District Court decision of Walmsley v Taylor [2001] DCR 711, Housing New Zealand Corp v Driver [2011] NZTT North Shore 1811 and Harrison v McCraken TT Hamilton TT891/99, 9 July 1999. In these cases, an important factor in determining whether the tenant had breached a duty of care, and was therefore liable, related to the level of parental supervision exercised by the tenant.
In this case, given the nature of the damage, the fact that it occurred on more than one occasion, and in multiple areas of the house, I find that the damage to the carpet caused by the tenants’ child was the result of the tenants breaching a duty of care relating to supervision. Consequently, this damage can be regarded as careless damage, which means that the tenants will be liable for it.
When determining the quantum of the landlord’s compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan must be factored in.
In this case, the evidence shows that the stains could not be removed despite both the landlord and tenants arranging for it to be commercially cleaned. The tenants’ suggestion that the carpet be patched up, rather than replaced, is not practical. The replacement cost of the carpet is $1,955.00, as evidenced by the invoice produced by the landlord. The carpet was two years old at the end of the tenancy, and therefore, the landlord can only be compensated for its depreciated value. Taking these factors into account, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $1,270.75. Cooktop
The landlord’s evidence is that the glass cooktop was brand new, and there was damage to the glass in two areas. The tenants have explained the circumstances and accept that this damage occurred during their tenancy. They have reported this damage to the landlord. The cost of the repairs was $851.00, and the tenants are liable for the full amount, as awarded above. The tenants’ application
The tenants have claimed a refund of the bond. However, the landlord has established their claims to the extent noted above, with the result that the bond is to be paid to the landlord. Therefore, the tenants’ claim for a return of the bond (in full) is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4517789 — net $342.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet - compensation	$1,270.75	Carpet - compensation
Repairs to cooktop	$851.00	Repairs to cooktop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$342.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$342.19

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the tenants have not been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Joseph Hay and Fransalina Anthony Manuel must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $342.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6389366-001) to Street Smart Property Management Limited immediately.
The tenants’ application (4542129) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Knight and Ms Redmond appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 4 December 2020 and ended on 26 December 2022. The rent is $450.00 per week and a bond of $1,800.00 was paid. The tenancy agreement records Mr Hay as the tenant, although both Mr Hay and Ms Anthony Manuel signed the tenancy agreement. The bond is in the name of both Mr Hay and Ms Anthony Manuel. The parties agree that both ought to be regarded as the tenants, and the parties’ names are amended accordingly above.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the carpet and cooktop, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 4517789. While noted in the application, the landlord has clarified that it does not seek exemplary damages. The landlord also no longer seeks compensation for damage to the walls.
The tenants have applied for a return of their bond of $1,800.00 (application number 4542129). General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
In this case, the landlord became aware of the damage after August 2019, therefore, the amended provisions will apply.
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) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $250.00. The rent for this premises is $450.00 per week.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including the relevant invoices), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to carpet in the living room, hallway and bedroom • Damage to cooktop The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. These claims are discussed in detail below. Carpet
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of the carpet in the living room, hallway and one of the bedrooms. Photographs have been produced, which show red staining on the carpet, together with a detailed inspection report completed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence is that professional carpet cleaners were unable to remove the stains. The carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The premises was newly built, with a Code Compliance Certificate being issued on 22 October 2020. The insurance excess is $250.00 per event. The landlord’s evidence is that the insurer has advised that with the excess being applied to each event, the excess was well over $8,000.00. The total cost of replacing the carpet for the three areas is $1,955.00. An invoice for the supply and installation of the carpet from Gerrard Enterprises has been produced.
The tenants’ evidence is that their one year old child spilt blackcurrant juice on the carpet and the stains were accidental. They state that this occurred on two occasions. They also tried to remove the stains by paying for the carpet to be professionally cleaned, but the stains remained. They accept that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but do not agree that it ought to be replaced. They felt that the areas where there was staining could be patched up.
The question of whether a tenant can be held liable where the damage was caused by a child has previously been considered in the District Court and by the Tribunal. For example, in the District Court decision of Walmsley v Taylor [2001] DCR 711, Housing New Zealand Corp v Driver [2011] NZTT North Shore 1811 and Harrison v McCraken TT Hamilton TT891/99, 9 July 1999. In these cases, an important factor in determining whether the tenant had breached a duty of care, and was therefore liable, related to the level of parental supervision exercised by the tenant.
In this case, given the nature of the damage, the fact that it occurred on more than one occasion, and in multiple areas of the house, I find that the damage to the carpet caused by the tenants’ child was the result of the tenants breaching a duty of care relating to supervision. Consequently, this damage can be regarded as careless damage, which means that the tenants will be liable for it.
When determining the quantum of the landlord’s compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan must be factored in.
In this case, the evidence shows that the stains could not be removed despite both the landlord and tenants arranging for it to be commercially cleaned. The tenants’ suggestion that the carpet be patched up, rather than replaced, is not practical. The replacement cost of the carpet is $1,955.00, as evidenced by the invoice produced by the landlord. The carpet was two years old at the end of the tenancy, and therefore, the landlord can only be compensated for its depreciated value. Taking these factors into account, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $1,270.75. Cooktop
The landlord’s evidence is that the glass cooktop was brand new, and there was damage to the glass in two areas. The tenants have explained the circumstances and accept that this damage occurred during their tenancy. They have reported this damage to the landlord. The cost of the repairs was $851.00, and the tenants are liable for the full amount, as awarded above. The tenants’ application
The tenants have claimed a refund of the bond. However, the landlord has established their claims to the extent noted above, with the result that the bond is to be paid to the landlord. Therefore, the tenants’ claim for a return of the bond (in full) is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4517789 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 11, 90 Swaffield Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4517789 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 11, 90 Swaffield Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions