What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4547870?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3336138-014) to Emmerline

How much money was awarded in case 4547870?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatments: $854.80 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $977.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,985.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4547870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4547870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563998-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4547870?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3336138-014) to Emmerline

How much money was awarded in case 4547870?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatments: $854.80 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $977.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,985.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4547870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4547870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563998-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

75 Blake Boulevard, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4547870 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4547870. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent	$977.15	Loss of rent
Flea treatments	$854.80	Flea treatments
Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability	$2,985.71	Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability
Application filing fee	$20.44	Application filing fee

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3336138-014) to Emmerline Veronica Mayclair immediately.
Emmerline Veronica Mayclair is to pay Lsa Property Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management And Jon Moore $2,588.10 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Loss of rent$977.15 Flea treatments$854.80 Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability)$2,985.71 Application filing fee$20.44 Total award$4,838.10 Bond-$2,280.00 Tenant to pay$2,558.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for compensation (carpet damage), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim is particularised as follows: a. The owner did not receive rent from 20 February to 8 March because the Tenant failed to vacate the premises on the vacate date. b. Rent rate: $570.00 per week. c. Total loss of rent for 16 days: $1,302.86. d. However, 4 days out of these are subtracted, assuming a normal vacancy during tenant change: -$325.71. e. Therefore, adjusted rent loss: $977.15, broken down as: i. From 20 February to 27 February (8 days, due to tenant's belongings still being present): $651.43. ii. From 28 February to 3 March (4 days, due to flea infestation and carpet replacement): $325.72. f. Flea-related expenses: i. Flea bombs: $49.80. ii. Exterior/Interior flea spray treatment: $490.00. iii. Only interior flea spray treatment: $315.00. g. Replacement of carpet due to damage: $7,677.49. h. Application fee for the claim: $20.44. i. Total expenses: $9,529.88. j. After subtracting the bond amount of $2,280.00, the reparation from the tenant amounts to $7,249.88.
The Tenant has cross-applied for release of her bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The core issue before this Tribunal is to determine the appropriate compensation for damages caused to the carpet of the property at 75 Blake Boulevard, Papamoa.
Having carefully reviewed the provided evidence: a. The Landlord claims the Tenant has allowed her dog to urinate in the home, resulting in widespread damage and a pungent smell that made carpet replacement necessary. b. The carpet consultant’s report indicates intense urine smell and provides photographic evidence of stains on the back of the carpets. c. The carpet cleaning company's representative states that the odour from the cat urine and particularly the heavy dog odour is beyond remediation by their company. d. Background information shows the carpet was 11 years old at the start of the tenancy and that there was no pungent dog smell at the commencement of the tenant’s tenancy. e. The carpet company have sealed the concrete (at a cost of $1,052.80), as a measure to permanently fix the odour by sealing the urine into the concrete, which has become permanently stuck in the substrate.
It is acknowledged that the carpet was 11 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. According to IRD's General Depreciation Determination DEP80, the realisable life expectancy for carpet in a residential tenancy is eight years.
The Tribunal must also consider what is “reasonable,” as highlighted in Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8, given the condition of the carpet before and after the tenancy.
Based on prior case law and evidence, it is not unprecedented for carpets to last 18 years, if not longer. 1 Given the age of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, we can estimate that the carpet had 7 more years of its useful life left.
Damage is considered intentional where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. The Tenant was aware of the damage, as highlighted by the regular inspection reports, and yet failed to take corrective measures. This indicates a level of neglect and potentially intentional damage.
I have done my very best to estimate the depreciated value of the carpet: a. Total useful life: approximately 18 years b. Remaining useful life: 7 years c. Replacement Value: $7,677.49 d. Annual depreciation = $7,677.49 / 18 = $426.53 e. Depreciated value at the time of damage = $426.53 x 7 = $2,985.71
The Tenant should be responsible for the depreciated value of the carpet based on its remaining useful life at the time the damage occurred. Additional Costs
The loss of rent amounting to $977.15 and flea treatments, totalling $854.80, are valid claims by the Landlord which I award.
It is also worth noting the Tenant’s belief that there were prior issues due to flooding in the laundry area. However, evidence points to widespread damage, not confined to the laundry area.
Finally, considering the Tenant’s claim that the Landlord was seeking carpet replacement from the outset, the Tenant’s argument about the Landlord taking measurements for carpet replacement purposes is refuted by the Landlord’s explanation of measurements for insurance purposes. Further, there is evidence that the Tenant was repeatedly informed about the damage, which would suggest the Landlord had good reason to set about replacing the carpet by the end of the tenancy. The Landlord’s evidence concerning the routine inspections and warnings to the Tenant, which are not refuted, only solidify the Landlord’s claim of damage over time.
This decision is in line with section 85 of the Act, allowing the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction ensuring a fair resolution. 1 [2023] NZTT 4579409, 4563712
Because Lsa Property Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management And Jon Moore has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4547870. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent	$977.15	Loss of rent
Flea treatments	$854.80	Flea treatments
Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability	$2,985.71	Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability
Application filing fee	$20.44	Application filing fee

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3336138-014) to Emmerline Veronica Mayclair immediately.
Emmerline Veronica Mayclair is to pay Lsa Property Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management And Jon Moore $2,588.10 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Loss of rent$977.15 Flea treatments$854.80 Carpet replacement (Tenant’s liability)$2,985.71 Application filing fee$20.44 Total award$4,838.10 Bond-$2,280.00 Tenant to pay$2,558.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for compensation (carpet damage), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim is particularised as follows: a. The owner did not receive rent from 20 February to 8 March because the Tenant failed to vacate the premises on the vacate date. b. Rent rate: $570.00 per week. c. Total loss of rent for 16 days: $1,302.86. d. However, 4 days out of these are subtracted, assuming a normal vacancy during tenant change: -$325.71. e. Therefore, adjusted rent loss: $977.15, broken down as: i. From 20 February to 27 February (8 days, due to tenant's belongings still being present): $651.43. ii. From 28 February to 3 March (4 days, due to flea infestation and carpet replacement): $325.72. f. Flea-related expenses: i. Flea bombs: $49.80. ii. Exterior/Interior flea spray treatment: $490.00. iii. Only interior flea spray treatment: $315.00. g. Replacement of carpet due to damage: $7,677.49. h. Application fee for the claim: $20.44. i. Total expenses: $9,529.88. j. After subtracting the bond amount of $2,280.00, the reparation from the tenant amounts to $7,249.88.
The Tenant has cross-applied for release of her bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The core issue before this Tribunal is to determine the appropriate compensation for damages caused to the carpet of the property at 75 Blake Boulevard, Papamoa.
Having carefully reviewed the provided evidence: a. The Landlord claims the Tenant has allowed her dog to urinate in the home, resulting in widespread damage and a pungent smell that made carpet replacement necessary. b. The carpet consultant’s report indicates intense urine smell and provides photographic evidence of stains on the back of the carpets. c. The carpet cleaning company's representative states that the odour from the cat urine and particularly the heavy dog odour is beyond remediation by their company. d. Background information shows the carpet was 11 years old at the start of the tenancy and that there was no pungent dog smell at the commencement of the tenant’s tenancy. e. The carpet company have sealed the concrete (at a cost of $1,052.80), as a measure to permanently fix the odour by sealing the urine into the concrete, which has become permanently stuck in the substrate.
It is acknowledged that the carpet was 11 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. According to IRD's General Depreciation Determination DEP80, the realisable life expectancy for carpet in a residential tenancy is eight years.
The Tribunal must also consider what is “reasonable,” as highlighted in Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8, given the condition of the carpet before and after the tenancy.
Based on prior case law and evidence, it is not unprecedented for carpets to last 18 years, if not longer. 1 Given the age of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, we can estimate that the carpet had 7 more years of its useful life left.
Damage is considered intentional where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. The Tenant was aware of the damage, as highlighted by the regular inspection reports, and yet failed to take corrective measures. This indicates a level of neglect and potentially intentional damage.
I have done my very best to estimate the depreciated value of the carpet: a. Total useful life: approximately 18 years b. Remaining useful life: 7 years c. Replacement Value: $7,677.49 d. Annual depreciation = $7,677.49 / 18 = $426.53 e. Depreciated value at the time of damage = $426.53 x 7 = $2,985.71
The Tenant should be responsible for the depreciated value of the carpet based on its remaining useful life at the time the damage occurred. Additional Costs
The loss of rent amounting to $977.15 and flea treatments, totalling $854.80, are valid claims by the Landlord which I award.
It is also worth noting the Tenant’s belief that there were prior issues due to flooding in the laundry area. However, evidence points to widespread damage, not confined to the laundry area.
Finally, considering the Tenant’s claim that the Landlord was seeking carpet replacement from the outset, the Tenant’s argument about the Landlord taking measurements for carpet replacement purposes is refuted by the Landlord’s explanation of measurements for insurance purposes. Further, there is evidence that the Tenant was repeatedly informed about the damage, which would suggest the Landlord had good reason to set about replacing the carpet by the end of the tenancy. The Landlord’s evidence concerning the routine inspections and warnings to the Tenant, which are not refuted, only solidify the Landlord’s claim of damage over time.
This decision is in line with section 85 of the Act, allowing the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction ensuring a fair resolution. 1 [2023] NZTT 4579409, 4563712
Because Lsa Property Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management And Jon Moore has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4547870 — Property damage at 75 Blake Boulevard, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4547870 — Property damage at 75 Blake Boulevard, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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