How much money was awarded in case 4526730?

Cleaning: $252.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4526730?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4526730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9251840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4526730?

Cleaning: $252.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4526730?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4526730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9251840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12B Kusabs Road, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4526730 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4526730?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4526730. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning costs	$252.00	Carpet cleaning costs
Carpet replacement (Tenant’s contribution	$2,150.00	Carpet replacement (Tenant’s contribution
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Application filing fee	$20.44	Application filing fee

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Lisa Newell is to pay Peter Terrence Calnan and Julie Calnan $1,162.44 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Carpet cleaning costs$252.00 Carpet replacement (Tenant’s contribution)$2,150.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Application filing fee$20.44 Total award$2,922.44 Minus bond-$1,760.00 Tenant to pay$1,162.44

Bond Services is to release the bond of $1,760.00 to Peter Terrence Calnan and Julie Calnan immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing, the second of two hearings.

The Landlords have claimed compensation for damage at the premises, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of their filing fee.

The Landlords brought additional claims which I was unable to determine because the Landlords either, did not provide paid invoices; or did not provide sufficient evidence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Contrary to the parties’ clear agreement, the Tenant permitted her animals inside the premises during the tenancy.

The Landlords claim the home smelled strongly of cat urine at the end of the tenancy. The smell of animal (likely cat) urine was detected by the Landlords during a routine inspection of the premises. The Tenant offered to clean the carpet.

I queried a carpet expert, the Landlords’ former tenant, and a carpet cleaning professional about the odour. I also had the benefit of reading a report from an insurance assessor who had visited the premises following the tenancy.

Each confirmed the premises had an odour which was distinctly animal. The carpet expert said it was cat urine and claimed to have got down on his hands and knees and smelt the carpet. The former tenant, who had cats living with her at the premises, said there had been no urine odour at the end of her tenancy but there had been an odour when she visited the home towards the end of the Tenant’s tenancy. The carpet cleaning professional, who had cleaned the carpet twice, could not recall what the home had smelt like before he had cleaned, when he came to clean the carpet a second time on 16 January 2023, at the Landlords’ request, he recorded in his job notes that he could detect a wet dog smell in at least one room.

I am satisfied the premises had an animal odour at the end of the tenancy which was, more likely than not, caused by the Tenant’s animals. While the Tenant did have the carpet professionally cleaned, the odour persisted.

The Landlords had the carpet cleaned and deodorised again. I award the Landlords the carpet cleaning costs as claimed: $252.00

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 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.

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.

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) 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) RTA.

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) 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. Carpet Cleaning and Replacement

The Tenant acknowledged having animals inside the home during the tenancy but denied responsibility for any odour. (The Landlord, and others, had seen the animals inside the home at various times.)

The Tenant denied her animals created any odour. She said her animals would never have urinated inside. She would have had to have watched her animals all the time to know whether this was true.

A carpet specialist gave evidence during the hearing. The specialist's opinion was that the magnitude of the pungent smell indicated multiple cats or multiple single cat urine events over a significant length of time. He was able to inspect and smell the underlay of the carpet, which confirmed his opinion.

The cost of replacing the carpet was $5,189.00.

The carpet was in good condition at the start of the tenancy, but the Landlord could not definitively say how old it was. It was not brand new at the start of the tenancy.

The Landlord’s photographs of the carpet at the start of the tenancy suggest it would have been about four years old at the start of the tenancy.

The useful lifespan of carpet in a residential tenancy is eight years (according to the IRD's General Depreciation Determination DEP80).

Given the damage caused by the Tenant’s animals (likely, cats), making the carpet unusable, the Tenant is liable for the additional depreciation, using the replacement value of the carpet as its starting value.

The Landlords claim the original carpet was a superior wool blend, and he has replaced the carpet with a cheaper but comparatively inferior product. I have no evidence upon which to conclude there is a material difference between the carpets. The original carpet may have been more expensive, but the Landlords have not provided any evidence in this regard.

Based on my calculations, the reasonable cost to the Landlords is the depreciated value of the carpet at the end of the tenancy, with provision made for the good condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy.

I award the Landlords $2,150.00. Did the number of people living at the premises exceed the maximum number of people allowed to live there?

The Landlords claim the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of four (4) people may live in the premises during the tenancy.

The tenant did not deny more than the agreed number of occupants had been living at the home in breach of the tenancy agreement. In fact, she apologised to the Landlords for this.

In her defence she said, at least one of the Landlords knew about the additional occupants and said nothing.

I do not accept this. The Tenant agreed to a maximum number of occupants and knows should have complied with that agreement.

I find the Tenant has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find the Tenant liable to pay the Landlords $500.00 in exemplary damages considering: a. The Tenant knowingly breached the tenancy agreement and should not have presumed the Landlords would tolerate it; b. Having additional occupants at the premises did contribute to the Landlords’ stress, concern, worry and costs; c. Both parties to an agreement must honour their word.

Because the Landlords have substantially succeeded in their claim, I award them their application filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4526730. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning costs	$252.00	Carpet cleaning costs
Carpet replacement (Tenant’s contribution	$2,150.00	Carpet replacement (Tenant’s contribution
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Application filing fee	$20.44	Application filing fee