How much money was awarded in case 4664690?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,305.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664690?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9668375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4664690?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,305.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664690?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9668375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 27 Alexander Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4664690 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4664690?

The tribunal order states: Manisha Neha and Rajneel Vikash to pay Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4664690 — net $1,325.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$1,305.25	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,325.69
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,325.69

Manisha Neha and Rajneel Vikash to pay Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited $1,325.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 (3291904-020) immediately apportioned as follows: Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited: $1,325.69 Manisha Neha and Rajneel Vikash: $434.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet replacement, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet was stained in bedroom 2 and the lounge. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord claimed $2,610.50 for carpet replacement in bedroom 2 and the lounge.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I consider the carpet was at least halfway through its estimated life and therefore have allowed 50% of the landlord’s claim.

The amount ordered is proved.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4664690 — net $1,325.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$1,305.25	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,325.69
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,325.69

Manisha Neha and Rajneel Vikash to pay Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited $1,325.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 (3291904-020) immediately apportioned as follows: Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited: $1,325.69 Manisha Neha and Rajneel Vikash: $434.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet replacement, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $2,610.50 for carpet replacement in bedroom 2 and the lounge.

The amount ordered is proved.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664690 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Alexander Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664690 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Alexander Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions