What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4753749?

The tribunal order states: Phillip Clement Hadley and Tania Hadley must pay Wendy Scott $20.44

How much money was awarded in case 4753749?

Cleaning: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753749?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10144223-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4753749?

The tribunal order states: Phillip Clement Hadley and Tania Hadley must pay Wendy Scott $20.44

How much money was awarded in case 4753749?

Cleaning: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753749?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10144223-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat H, 2 Buckland Road, Tuakau, Franklin 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753749 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753749 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and Repair	$310.00	Carpet Cleaning: and Repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Phillip Clement Hadley and Tania Hadley must pay Wendy Scott $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cleaning and repairing of the carpet in bedroom 1, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Bond Centre paid the bond of $310.00 (5179104-010) to Wendy Scott after the previous hearing of application 4753749 and 4734169 on 14 February 2024. When the application for a rehearing was granted, the Bond Centre had already reimbursed the landlord the $310.00.

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.
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 dispute that led to this hearing was in relation to some orange dye stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 that were not there when the tenancy commenced on 26 October 2020, as per the agreed entry checklist, but were evident in the exit inspection photographs.
The tenants claim the stains were not present on 21 October 2023 when they had all their furniture moved to new premises, nor when Mrs Hadley and a professional house cleaner had fully cleaned the premises in the week 22 to 27 October 2023. Further, the tenants refute that the landlord’s witness was present when the landlord expressed her concerns about the stains on the carpet to the tenants, during the exit inspection.
The landlord reiterated that she had brought the stains to the tenants’ attention during the exit inspection and produced a witness statement from a friend that assisted her with the exit inspection. This witness statement confirms the landlord’s recollection of the conversation had with the tenants during the exit inspection about the carpet stains.
On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the landlord’s evidence over that of the tenants because: a. The tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 during the entry inspection and did not request an amendment to the checklist contained within the signed the tenancy. The checklist indicates there are no issues with the carpet in bedroom 1; b. The tenants cannot have missed the orange stains on the carpet as the photographs provided proves they are quite extensive; c. The landlord’s witness has given evidence that the stains were discussed with the tenants at the exit inspection and that they were aware that the removal of the stains were considered to be the tenants responsibility as this damage had occurred during the tenancy and prima facie appeared to be the result of careless acts by the tenants; d. The tenants denied any knowledge of the stains and alluded to the stains having occurred in between the 21 and 28 October 2023.I do not find this evidence probable.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Wendy Scott has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753749 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and Repair	$310.00	Carpet Cleaning: and Repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Phillip Clement Hadley and Tania Hadley must pay Wendy Scott $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cleaning and repairing of the carpet in bedroom 1, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Bond Centre paid the bond of $310.00 (5179104-010) to Wendy Scott after the previous hearing of application 4753749 and 4734169 on 14 February 2024. When the application for a rehearing was granted, the Bond Centre had already reimbursed the landlord the $310.00.

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.
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 dispute that led to this hearing was in relation to some orange dye stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 that were not there when the tenancy commenced on 26 October 2020, as per the agreed entry checklist, but were evident in the exit inspection photographs.
The tenants claim the stains were not present on 21 October 2023 when they had all their furniture moved to new premises, nor when Mrs Hadley and a professional house cleaner had fully cleaned the premises in the week 22 to 27 October 2023. Further, the tenants refute that the landlord’s witness was present when the landlord expressed her concerns about the stains on the carpet to the tenants, during the exit inspection.
The landlord reiterated that she had brought the stains to the tenants’ attention during the exit inspection and produced a witness statement from a friend that assisted her with the exit inspection. This witness statement confirms the landlord’s recollection of the conversation had with the tenants during the exit inspection about the carpet stains.
On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the landlord’s evidence over that of the tenants because: a. The tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 during the entry inspection and did not request an amendment to the checklist contained within the signed the tenancy. The checklist indicates there are no issues with the carpet in bedroom 1; b. The tenants cannot have missed the orange stains on the carpet as the photographs provided proves they are quite extensive; c. The landlord’s witness has given evidence that the stains were discussed with the tenants at the exit inspection and that they were aware that the removal of the stains were considered to be the tenants responsibility as this damage had occurred during the tenancy and prima facie appeared to be the result of careless acts by the tenants; d. The tenants denied any knowledge of the stains and alluded to the stains having occurred in between the 21 and 28 October 2023.I do not find this evidence probable.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Wendy Scott has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753749 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat H, 2 Buckland Road, Tuakau, Franklin 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753749 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat H, 2 Buckland Road, Tuakau, Franklin 2121

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