How much money was awarded in case 4623071?

Property Damage: $960.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9243187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4623071?

Property Damage: $960.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9243187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Koputaroa Road, Levin, RD 5, Levin 5575 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4623071 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4623071?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623071 — net $960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage	$960.00	Carpet damage
Net award	$960.00
Bond	$960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$960.00

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

Alexandra Crawford to pay Amanda Georgina Kerr-Weldon $960.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 (6275902-001) to Amanda Georgina Kerr-Weldon immediately.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation due to carpet damage and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2019 and ended on 29 March 2023.

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 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.

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.

At the end of the tenancy the carpets were found to be badly stained and damaged in all rooms and the carpet will require replacement.

A carpet recovery company presented a letter which stated they had cleaned the carpets for the previous owner up until May 2018 and again for the current landlord in 2021 and an end of tenancy clean in March 2023.

The carpets were new not long before the current landlord purchased the property in 2019.

The carpet report stated the carpets at the end of the tenancy were in disgusting condition throughput. It said the tenant had accepted the damage was caused by them and ask for the stains to be cleaned. The report noted that as the tenant had used a product on them prior to his visit and because of the extent of the nature of some of the staining, the stains could not be removed. That is evident by the photographs of the carpet after the clean presented by the landlord.

As the carpet recovery company had cleaned the carpets previously, I accept its evidence that the staining was caused during this tenancy and is well beyond fair wear and tear.

I also find that extent of the staining leads me to the conclusion a situation was allowed to continue over a period of time whereby the outcome would be damage to the carpet well beyond fair wear and tear. As such the tenant is liable to pay compensation.

The landlord is seeking only the refund of the bond to contribute to replacement. The landlords’ insurance excess if $1150.00 per event. Seven rooms are affected.

Taking into account, I award the amount sought by the landlord being $960.00.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623071 — net $960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage	$960.00	Carpet damage
Net award	$960.00
Bond	$960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$960.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Alexandra Crawford to pay Amanda Georgina Kerr-Weldon $960.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 (6275902-001) to Amanda Georgina Kerr-Weldon immediately.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation due to carpet damage and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2019 and ended on 29 March 2023.

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 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.
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.
At the end of the tenancy the carpets were found to be badly stained and damaged in all rooms and the carpet will require replacement.
A carpet recovery company presented a letter which stated they had cleaned the carpets for the previous owner up until May 2018 and again for the current landlord in 2021 and an end of tenancy clean in March 2023.
The carpets were new not long before the current landlord purchased the property in 2019.
The carpet report stated the carpets at the end of the tenancy were in disgusting condition throughput. It said the tenant had accepted the damage was caused by them and ask for the stains to be cleaned. The report noted that as the tenant had used a product on them prior to his visit and because of the extent of the nature of some of the staining, the stains could not be removed. That is evident by the photographs of the carpet after the clean presented by the landlord.
As the carpet recovery company had cleaned the carpets previously, I accept its evidence that the staining was caused during this tenancy and is well beyond fair wear and tear.
I also find that extent of the staining leads me to the conclusion a situation was allowed to continue over a period of time whereby the outcome would be damage to the carpet well beyond fair wear and tear. As such the tenant is liable to pay compensation.
The landlord is seeking only the refund of the bond to contribute to replacement. The landlords’ insurance excess if $1150.00 per event. Seven rooms are affected.
Taking into account, I award the amount sought by the landlord being $960.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623071 — Property damage at 45 Koputaroa Road, Levin, RD 5, Levin 5575

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623071 — Property damage at 45 Koputaroa Road, Levin, RD 5, Levin 5575

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions