What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695070?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Woolfe must pay Red Gecko Investments Limited $8,803.09 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4695070?

Cat Door: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $543.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,058.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $213.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Stools: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $505.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,697.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $136.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695070?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9862426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695070?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Woolfe must pay Red Gecko Investments Limited $8,803.09 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4695070?

Cat Door: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $543.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,058.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $213.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Stools: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $505.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,697.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $136.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695070?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9862426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 59 Briggs Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695070 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695070 — net $8,803.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2022	$1,697.00	Rent arrears to 7 November 2022
Curtain cleaning	$543.40	Curtain cleaning
Oven replacement	$505.00	Oven replacement
Vertical blind cleaning	$155.00	Vertical blind cleaning
House cleaning	$1,058.00	House cleaning
Rubbish removal	$136.25	Rubbish removal
Kitchen stools	$120.00	Kitchen stools
Cat door	$65.00	Cat door
Weights and hangers for vertical blinds and cleaning roller blinds	$213.00	Weights and hangers for vertical blinds and cleaning roller blinds
Walls and ceilings damage and painting	$3,300.00	Walls and ceilings damage and painting
Carpet replacement	$2,750.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,803.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,803.09

Order

Lisa Woolfe must pay Red Gecko Investments Limited $8,803.09 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Mrs Newman attended in person on behalf of the landlord. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond in the sum of $1,760 has been paid to the landlord. Background
The landlord bought the premises in 2013 and it has been a rental since then. In 2017, the landlord completely renovated the premises. This tenancy began in March 2020, and I accept the landlord’s assessment that the premises were in “near new” condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord produced photographs showing the condition of the premises at that time.
In August 2022, the landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on the ground that it intended putting the premises on the market. The termination date was 27 November.
The tenant then served her own termination notice expiring on 7 November.
The tenant vacated the premises on 16 October. There was no one occupying the premises after that date until the landlord relet them in April 2023.
The landlord messaged the tenant on 17 October, acknowledging the tenant’s notice. The message refers to damage to the premises and refers to cleaning being required. It stated that unless the tenant returned to remediate the situation, the landlord would get cleaners in.
The tenant did not return to the premises. She said in evidence that she had done the best she could in terms of cleaning and repairs. She said that she was not fully well at the time.
The landlord brought in cleaners and made an insurance claim for damage to the premises. There was evidence from the insurer of an assessment of damage, an estimate of remediation costs and what was payable to the landlord after deduction of the applicable excesses.
The landlord’s evidence was that curtains and carpet in the premises was contaminated by dog urine. Curtains were cleaned but the carpet was beyond cleaning and had to be replaced. There were also burn marks on the carpet and there were stains in places.
There was also extensive damage to the premises. There were multiple areas that had suffered damage which had been repaired to an extent, but not painted.
The insurer’s assessment was based on a loss adjuster’s estimate and, in terms of wall and ceiling damage, does not identify precisely what damage it included. The landlord said that the cost of repairs and painting was $4,200 plus the cost of paint which they estimated to be in region of $1,500. That cost is somewhat less than the insurer’s estimate. As well, the landlord had all the walls and ceilings in the premises painted whereas the insurer’s estimate covered only insured damage. The landlords accept that not all the walls and ceilings were damaged beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord referred to other claims that they could have made but have not. For example, they have not claimed the cost of disposing of the carpet, replacing heat damaged cupboards, and painting the garage door which was graffitied. I note as well that the landlord has not claimed any loss of rental income.
They also said that they have not sold the premises because, by the time they had put the premises into a saleable condition, the market had dropped, and they decided to relet it. Admitted Claims
The tenant admitted the claim for rent arrears and damage to the cat door and two kitchen stools that were left outside. I have therefore made those awards. Other Claims - Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment where appropriate. 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. General Findings
The tenant said that damage to the premises was not intentional. She admitted that her teenage son caused some damage which she described as reckless.
The nature and extent of the damage leads me to conclude that some, at least, of the wall damage was intentional. It is not credible that such extensive and substantial damage could be the result of mere carelessness. The tenant did accept that a flatmate had caused some intentional damage in one of the bedrooms. He had made a hole in the ceiling of a cupboard.
The tenant denied that the two dogs in the premises had urinated inside the premises. She said that they slept outside and that when they were inside during the day, there was someone in the premises. She went out to work during the day. She also said that if the dogs had urinated inside the premises as the landlord claims, she and others living in the premises would have become unwell. I accept that it would have been unpleasant, but not necessarily intolerable.
The landlord’s evidence on this issue was compelling and I accept it. The tenant was out working, and her son was left in the premises with the dogs. I have found that the son has intentionally damaged the premises. Any other conclusion would be unrealistic. The tenant cannot give evidence about what happened in the premises when she was not there. The evidence does not suggest that the son could be relied on to ensure that the dogs did not urinate in the premises.
I reject the suggestion that the premises were not contaminated by dog urine because if that were the case those living there would not be able to tolerate it. As an experienced adjudicator, I have been surprised by what some people can tolerate. The odour of substantial contamination from dog urine is undoubtedly unpleasant. But it can be mitigated by ventilation and using air fresheners that mask the odour. It can be tolerated. Claims Cleaning
I am satisfied that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and they needed substantial cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Curtains and blinds also needed cleaning. The weights for the vertical blinds were contaminated from dog urine and needed to be replaced. The amounts awarded were proved by the production of invoices and receipts. Oven
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the oven door was damaged during the tenancy and the oven had to be replaced. The tenant did not produce any evidence to support her claim that only the seals on the door were faulty.
I have therefore awarded the cost of replacing the oven proved by the production of an invoice. Rubbish
The tenant left rubbish at the premises and the landlords had to dispose of it. I have awarded the dump fee as proved by a receipt. Carpet
I accept that the carpet needed to be replaced due to a combination of staining, burn damage and contamination by dog urine. The landlord claims five insurance excesses of $550 each for five rooms/areas affected. That is less than the cost of replacing the carpet and I have therefore awarded $2,750. Wall and Door Repairs and Painting
The damage to the premises was extensive. The landlord claims 6 insurance excesses. I am satisfied that is less than the cost of repairing and repainting the damage for which the tenant is responsible, and I have therefore awarded $3,300. Kitchen Cupboards
The kitchen cupboards next to the oven suffered burn damage due to the heat from the oven escaping past the faulty door. There is no claim in respect of that damage. Porch Glass
Porch glass was broken during the tenancy, but the landlord has not produced any evidence of the cost of replacing it. This claim is therefore dismissed. Betterment
Given the near new condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy and the fact that I have awarded insurance excesses and not the full cost of carpet and repairs, there is no need to consider betterment. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695070 — net $8,803.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2022	$1,697.00	Rent arrears to 7 November 2022
Curtain cleaning	$543.40	Curtain cleaning
Oven replacement	$505.00	Oven replacement
Vertical blind cleaning	$155.00	Vertical blind cleaning
House cleaning	$1,058.00	House cleaning
Rubbish removal	$136.25	Rubbish removal
Kitchen stools	$120.00	Kitchen stools
Cat door	$65.00	Cat door
Weights and hangers for vertical blinds and cleaning roller blinds	$213.00	Weights and hangers for vertical blinds and cleaning roller blinds
Walls and ceilings damage and painting	$3,300.00	Walls and ceilings damage and painting
Carpet replacement	$2,750.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,803.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,803.09

Order

Lisa Woolfe must pay Red Gecko Investments Limited $8,803.09 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Mrs Newman attended in person on behalf of the landlord. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond in the sum of $1,760 has been paid to the landlord. Background
The landlord bought the premises in 2013 and it has been a rental since then. In 2017, the landlord completely renovated the premises. This tenancy began in March 2020, and I accept the landlord’s assessment that the premises were in “near new” condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord produced photographs showing the condition of the premises at that time.
In August 2022, the landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on the ground that it intended putting the premises on the market. The termination date was 27 November.
The tenant then served her own termination notice expiring on 7 November.
The tenant vacated the premises on 16 October. There was no one occupying the premises after that date until the landlord relet them in April 2023.
The landlord messaged the tenant on 17 October, acknowledging the tenant’s notice. The message refers to damage to the premises and refers to cleaning being required. It stated that unless the tenant returned to remediate the situation, the landlord would get cleaners in.
The tenant did not return to the premises. She said in evidence that she had done the best she could in terms of cleaning and repairs. She said that she was not fully well at the time.
The landlord brought in cleaners and made an insurance claim for damage to the premises. There was evidence from the insurer of an assessment of damage, an estimate of remediation costs and what was payable to the landlord after deduction of the applicable excesses.
The landlord’s evidence was that curtains and carpet in the premises was contaminated by dog urine. Curtains were cleaned but the carpet was beyond cleaning and had to be replaced. There were also burn marks on the carpet and there were stains in places.
There was also extensive damage to the premises. There were multiple areas that had suffered damage which had been repaired to an extent, but not painted.
The insurer’s assessment was based on a loss adjuster’s estimate and, in terms of wall and ceiling damage, does not identify precisely what damage it included. The landlord said that the cost of repairs and painting was $4,200 plus the cost of paint which they estimated to be in region of $1,500. That cost is somewhat less than the insurer’s estimate. As well, the landlord had all the walls and ceilings in the premises painted whereas the insurer’s estimate covered only insured damage. The landlords accept that not all the walls and ceilings were damaged beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord referred to other claims that they could have made but have not. For example, they have not claimed the cost of disposing of the carpet, replacing heat damaged cupboards, and painting the garage door which was graffitied. I note as well that the landlord has not claimed any loss of rental income.
They also said that they have not sold the premises because, by the time they had put the premises into a saleable condition, the market had dropped, and they decided to relet it. Admitted Claims
The tenant admitted the claim for rent arrears and damage to the cat door and two kitchen stools that were left outside. I have therefore made those awards. Other Claims - Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment where appropriate. 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. General Findings
The tenant said that damage to the premises was not intentional. She admitted that her teenage son caused some damage which she described as reckless.
The nature and extent of the damage leads me to conclude that some, at least, of the wall damage was intentional. It is not credible that such extensive and substantial damage could be the result of mere carelessness. The tenant did accept that a flatmate had caused some intentional damage in one of the bedrooms. He had made a hole in the ceiling of a cupboard.
The tenant denied that the two dogs in the premises had urinated inside the premises. She said that they slept outside and that when they were inside during the day, there was someone in the premises. She went out to work during the day. She also said that if the dogs had urinated inside the premises as the landlord claims, she and others living in the premises would have become unwell. I accept that it would have been unpleasant, but not necessarily intolerable.
The landlord’s evidence on this issue was compelling and I accept it. The tenant was out working, and her son was left in the premises with the dogs. I have found that the son has intentionally damaged the premises. Any other conclusion would be unrealistic. The tenant cannot give evidence about what happened in the premises when she was not there. The evidence does not suggest that the son could be relied on to ensure that the dogs did not urinate in the premises.
I reject the suggestion that the premises were not contaminated by dog urine because if that were the case those living there would not be able to tolerate it. As an experienced adjudicator, I have been surprised by what some people can tolerate. The odour of substantial contamination from dog urine is undoubtedly unpleasant. But it can be mitigated by ventilation and using air fresheners that mask the odour. It can be tolerated. Claims Cleaning
I am satisfied that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and they needed substantial cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Curtains and blinds also needed cleaning. The weights for the vertical blinds were contaminated from dog urine and needed to be replaced. The amounts awarded were proved by the production of invoices and receipts. Oven
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the oven door was damaged during the tenancy and the oven had to be replaced. The tenant did not produce any evidence to support her claim that only the seals on the door were faulty.
I have therefore awarded the cost of replacing the oven proved by the production of an invoice. Rubbish
The tenant left rubbish at the premises and the landlords had to dispose of it. I have awarded the dump fee as proved by a receipt. Carpet
I accept that the carpet needed to be replaced due to a combination of staining, burn damage and contamination by dog urine. The landlord claims five insurance excesses of $550 each for five rooms/areas affected. That is less than the cost of replacing the carpet and I have therefore awarded $2,750. Wall and Door Repairs and Painting
The damage to the premises was extensive. The landlord claims 6 insurance excesses. I am satisfied that is less than the cost of repairing and repainting the damage for which the tenant is responsible, and I have therefore awarded $3,300. Kitchen Cupboards
The kitchen cupboards next to the oven suffered burn damage due to the heat from the oven escaping past the faulty door. There is no claim in respect of that damage. Porch Glass
Porch glass was broken during the tenancy, but the landlord has not produced any evidence of the cost of replacing it. This claim is therefore dismissed. Betterment
Given the near new condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy and the fact that I have awarded insurance excesses and not the full cost of carpet and repairs, there is no need to consider betterment. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695070 — Property damage at Flat 2, 59 Briggs Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695070 — Property damage at Flat 2, 59 Briggs Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions