What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4579550?

The tribunal order states: No suppression order applies to the publication of this order.

How much money was awarded in case 4579550?

Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579550?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9628612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4579550?

The tribunal order states: No suppression order applies to the publication of this order.

How much money was awarded in case 4579550?

Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579550?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9628612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Benders Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4579550 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4579550 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exit cleaning	$700.00	Exit cleaning
Carpet repairs: Insurance excess x 2	$1,100.00	Carpet repairs: Insurance excess x 2
Net award	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,800.00

Order

No suppression order applies to the publication of this order.
Matthew Graham Officer, Lucas Samuel Scatchard Brydon, Benjamin Rutherford Kennerley, Benjamin Michael Sharp, James Coughlan and Isabel Heasman to pay Jade Rental Michelle Harris $1,800.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6212912-003) to Jade Rental Michelle Harris immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6212912-003) to Matthew Graham Officer, Lucas Samuel Scatchard Brydon, Benjamin Rutherford Kennerley, Benjamin Michael Sharp, James Coughlan and Isabel Heasman immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy started on 1 st May 2021 and ended on 7 th April 2023.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for cleaning and carpet damage from the bond. Exit cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord sought $740.00 for the tenant not leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not removing all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos at the end of the tenancy to prove the claim.
The tenant did not dispute that the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy but did dispute the remaining rubbish as the tenant had gone back to the premises to pick up their belongings and dispose the remaining rubbish.
Having seen the photos and having heard from both parties, I find that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I do not find that the landlord has proven what rubbish had been left behind.
Having considered the quote for the cleaning, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $700.00 for the exit cleaning. Carpet damage
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 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. 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. 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. 4579550, 46382743
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 landlord sought $2,400.00 for replacing the carpet in the lounge and the corridor. The landlord said that the carpet was dirty and damaged beyond repair.
The landlord said that the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a receipt to prove that the carpet was installed in March 2021.
The landlord provided photos showing the state of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted having accidently spilt some drink in the lounge but argued that the carpet in the corridor was fair wear and tear.
Having seen the photos, I find that the state of the carpet was beyond fair wear and tear both in the lounge and the corridor.
The landlord did have insurance and the policy stated that excess was $550.00.
However, the landlord had not lodged an insurance claim for the replacement of the carpet. It seems that the landlord was verbally told over the phone by the insurance company that insurance may not be covering the carpet. However, the landlord should have lodged the claim in any case to find out whether it would be covered and how much total excess would be if it was covered.
I take judicial notice of the fact that insurance companies charge one excess fee per event. To cover the carpet replacement for the corridor and the lounge, the insurance excess payable by the tenant would have been $1,100.00.
If the landlord had lodged the claim but was declined by the insurance company, the landlord may have been able to claim up to $3,600.00 being four weeks’ rent for careless damage. However, as the landlord did not explore the insurance option further, I only grant the landlord $1,100.00 being the equivalent of two insurance excess fees. The tenants should not have to be disadvantaged due to the landlord’s own choice not to lodge an insurance claim. 4579550, 46382744 Filing fee reimbursement
As the parties only had partial success with their respective applications, I do not make any order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4579550 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exit cleaning	$700.00	Exit cleaning
Carpet repairs: Insurance excess x 2	$1,100.00	Carpet repairs: Insurance excess x 2
Net award	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,800.00

Order

No suppression order applies to the publication of this order.
Matthew Graham Officer, Lucas Samuel Scatchard Brydon, Benjamin Rutherford Kennerley, Benjamin Michael Sharp, James Coughlan and Isabel Heasman to pay Jade Rental Michelle Harris $1,800.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6212912-003) to Jade Rental Michelle Harris immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6212912-003) to Matthew Graham Officer, Lucas Samuel Scatchard Brydon, Benjamin Rutherford Kennerley, Benjamin Michael Sharp, James Coughlan and Isabel Heasman immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy started on 1 st May 2021 and ended on 7 th April 2023.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for cleaning and carpet damage from the bond. Exit cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord sought $740.00 for the tenant not leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not removing all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos at the end of the tenancy to prove the claim.
The tenant did not dispute that the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy but did dispute the remaining rubbish as the tenant had gone back to the premises to pick up their belongings and dispose the remaining rubbish.
Having seen the photos and having heard from both parties, I find that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I do not find that the landlord has proven what rubbish had been left behind.
Having considered the quote for the cleaning, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $700.00 for the exit cleaning. Carpet damage
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 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. 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. 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. 4579550, 46382743
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 landlord sought $2,400.00 for replacing the carpet in the lounge and the corridor. The landlord said that the carpet was dirty and damaged beyond repair.
The landlord said that the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and provided a receipt to prove that the carpet was installed in March 2021.
The landlord provided photos showing the state of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted having accidently spilt some drink in the lounge but argued that the carpet in the corridor was fair wear and tear.
Having seen the photos, I find that the state of the carpet was beyond fair wear and tear both in the lounge and the corridor.
The landlord did have insurance and the policy stated that excess was $550.00.
However, the landlord had not lodged an insurance claim for the replacement of the carpet. It seems that the landlord was verbally told over the phone by the insurance company that insurance may not be covering the carpet. However, the landlord should have lodged the claim in any case to find out whether it would be covered and how much total excess would be if it was covered.
I take judicial notice of the fact that insurance companies charge one excess fee per event. To cover the carpet replacement for the corridor and the lounge, the insurance excess payable by the tenant would have been $1,100.00.
If the landlord had lodged the claim but was declined by the insurance company, the landlord may have been able to claim up to $3,600.00 being four weeks’ rent for careless damage. However, as the landlord did not explore the insurance option further, I only grant the landlord $1,100.00 being the equivalent of two insurance excess fees. The tenants should not have to be disadvantaged due to the landlord’s own choice not to lodge an insurance claim. 4579550, 46382744 Filing fee reimbursement
As the parties only had partial success with their respective applications, I do not make any order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579550 — Property damage at 15 Benders Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579550 — Property damage at 15 Benders Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

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