What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637796?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4637796?

Carpet Stain Treatment: $145.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637796?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637796?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4637796?

Carpet Stain Treatment: $145.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637796?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 210, 226 Salisbury Street, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637796 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637796 — net $915.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet stain treatment	$145.00	Carpet stain treatment
Insurance excess for water damage	$750.00	Insurance excess for water damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$915.44
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$915.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants but no order is made as their defence to the application is unsuccessful.
Nesha Fry, Isabella Davis and Em Laurie Harrison to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Billy Smith $915.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (5664437-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Billy Smith: $915.44 Nesha Fry, Isabella Davis and Em Laurie Harrison: $1,064.56
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Harrison represented the tenants. Ms Brown and Ms Wheelans represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the cost of stain removal from the lounge carpet and for the insurance excess on a claim for water damage that originated where the washing machine was situated.
I heard from the parties and from a witness for the tenants, Mr Fry, a licensed building practitioner.

Are the tenants liable for the carpet stain removal costs claimed?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the end of the tenancy there was a stain on the lounge carpet.
Mr Fry addressed this in evidence. He said that the carpet was solution dyed nylon and therefore any stain could be removed.
That is exactly what the landlord’s claim is for.
I find that the tenants caused a stain to the carpet; it was not removed by the time they vacated the tenancy. They are liable for the cost of the stain removal treatment.
The amount ordered for carpet stain treatment is proved by a photo and an invoice.

Are the tenants 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.
The damage in this case was water damage that originated from the area where the washing machine was located.
The tenants took the washing machine with them when they vacated.
There are 2 possible causes of the damage. The first is that it was gradual damage over time. The second is that it was due to the water tap or taps leaking over a short period of time after the tenants removed the washing machine.
In the first case the tenants would probably not be liable. In the second instance they would be liable on the basis that the damaged was caused by their carelessness.
Again, Mr Fry’s evidence was useful. He had not viewed the damage. But he was quite clear when I put the 2 possible causes to him.
Mr Fry thought it possible that the leak occurred gradually due to the pipe work being poorly done and he thought the custom wood skirtings would not blow out in a couple of days; the only way the skirting could blow out was if the water penetrated from the bottom or there was a slow leak behind the wall.
Mr Fry’s evidence effectively answered the question. He said if the water had saturated the carpets and had gone beyond the laundry arear, the probable cause was the taps leaking. (He was unaware that the water damage was so extensive).
That is exactly what happened. The flooding was quite extensive affecting even the kitchen cabinets away from the laundry area and also the lounge.
The landlord produced evidence from a real estate agent who entered the premises on 10 June (the tenancy ended on 9 June). He observed a steady drip coming from a tap previously connected to the washing machine. The water had spread through the hall, into one of the bedrooms and out to the dining/kitchen area. He turned the tap off completely.
The tenants provided written statements from their friends who removed the washing machine on 3 June They state that they did not observe any leaks.
But the evidence establishes that there was a leak from the tap previously connected to the washing machine described by the real estate agent as a steady drip.
As I have noted, Mr Fry’s evidence that a leaking tap (rather than a gradual cause) would be evidence by spread into other rooms is exactly what occurred.
I find that the probable cause of the flooding was a washing machine tap that dripped steadily over days from 3 June until discovered on 10 June by the real estate agent.
The damage occurred during the tenancy. It was not fair wear and tear, and it was not, on the balance of probabilities, gradual damage over time in the manner Mr Fry described gradual damage.
The tenants are liable for the damage. Because the landlord is insured, their liability is capped at the amount of the insurance excess. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $915.44 from the bond which includes the landlord’s filing fee on the successful application. The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $915.44 to the landlord and $1,064.56 to the tenants. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenants sought name suppression but are not entitled to an order as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637796 — net $915.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet stain treatment	$145.00	Carpet stain treatment
Insurance excess for water damage	$750.00	Insurance excess for water damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$915.44
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$915.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants but no order is made as their defence to the application is unsuccessful.
Nesha Fry, Isabella Davis and Em Laurie Harrison to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Billy Smith $915.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (5664437-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for Billy Smith: $915.44 Nesha Fry, Isabella Davis and Em Laurie Harrison: $1,064.56
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Harrison represented the tenants. Ms Brown and Ms Wheelans represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the cost of stain removal from the lounge carpet and for the insurance excess on a claim for water damage that originated where the washing machine was situated.
I heard from the parties and from a witness for the tenants, Mr Fry, a licensed building practitioner.

Are the tenants liable for the carpet stain removal costs claimed?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the end of the tenancy there was a stain on the lounge carpet.
Mr Fry addressed this in evidence. He said that the carpet was solution dyed nylon and therefore any stain could be removed.
That is exactly what the landlord’s claim is for.
I find that the tenants caused a stain to the carpet; it was not removed by the time they vacated the tenancy. They are liable for the cost of the stain removal treatment.
The amount ordered for carpet stain treatment is proved by a photo and an invoice.

Are the tenants 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.
The damage in this case was water damage that originated from the area where the washing machine was located.
The tenants took the washing machine with them when they vacated.
There are 2 possible causes of the damage. The first is that it was gradual damage over time. The second is that it was due to the water tap or taps leaking over a short period of time after the tenants removed the washing machine.
In the first case the tenants would probably not be liable. In the second instance they would be liable on the basis that the damaged was caused by their carelessness.
Again, Mr Fry’s evidence was useful. He had not viewed the damage. But he was quite clear when I put the 2 possible causes to him.
Mr Fry thought it possible that the leak occurred gradually due to the pipe work being poorly done and he thought the custom wood skirtings would not blow out in a couple of days; the only way the skirting could blow out was if the water penetrated from the bottom or there was a slow leak behind the wall.
Mr Fry’s evidence effectively answered the question. He said if the water had saturated the carpets and had gone beyond the laundry arear, the probable cause was the taps leaking. (He was unaware that the water damage was so extensive).
That is exactly what happened. The flooding was quite extensive affecting even the kitchen cabinets away from the laundry area and also the lounge.
The landlord produced evidence from a real estate agent who entered the premises on 10 June (the tenancy ended on 9 June). He observed a steady drip coming from a tap previously connected to the washing machine. The water had spread through the hall, into one of the bedrooms and out to the dining/kitchen area. He turned the tap off completely.
The tenants provided written statements from their friends who removed the washing machine on 3 June They state that they did not observe any leaks.
But the evidence establishes that there was a leak from the tap previously connected to the washing machine described by the real estate agent as a steady drip.
As I have noted, Mr Fry’s evidence that a leaking tap (rather than a gradual cause) would be evidence by spread into other rooms is exactly what occurred.
I find that the probable cause of the flooding was a washing machine tap that dripped steadily over days from 3 June until discovered on 10 June by the real estate agent.
The damage occurred during the tenancy. It was not fair wear and tear, and it was not, on the balance of probabilities, gradual damage over time in the manner Mr Fry described gradual damage.
The tenants are liable for the damage. Because the landlord is insured, their liability is capped at the amount of the insurance excess. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $915.44 from the bond which includes the landlord’s filing fee on the successful application. The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $915.44 to the landlord and $1,064.56 to the tenants. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenants sought name suppression but are not entitled to an order as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637796 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 210, 226 Salisbury Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637796 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 210, 226 Salisbury Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the carpet stain removal costs claimed?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the carpet stain removal costs claimed?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions