What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4753794?

The tribunal order states: Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune to pay Vista Realty Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 4753794?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753794?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10275380-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4753794?

The tribunal order states: Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune to pay Vista Realty Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 4753794?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753794?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10275380-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Drovers Way, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753794 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753794 — net $1,929.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (consent	$108.71	Water rates (consent
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,800.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,929.15
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,929.15

Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune to pay Vista Realty Limited as agent for Golden Property Investment Ltd $1,929.15 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (6413496-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Vista Realty Limited as agent for Golden Property Investment Ltd: $1,929.15 Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune: $1,670.85

The application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Parker and Mr Widdup represented the landlord. Mr Van Lune represented the tenants.

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

The tenancy started on 21 May 2021 and ended on 26 November 2023.

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. I have allowed that amount by consent.

The landlord withdrew a claim for cleaning costs.

The only issue in dispute is the landlord’s claim for the cost of carpet replacement.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant accepted that the carpets in the three bedrooms were stained. He had the carpets cleaned and treated for stain removal. The stains were not fully removed though the evidence he produced suggests that they will fade with time.

The landlord seeks the cost of carpet replacement for the three bedrooms with the same carpet as was laid when the premises were newly built. This was the first tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that the staining is such that carpet replacement is necessary.

The carpets have not been replaced because the identical carpet was not available. Also, a new tenancy has started.

While the landlord is insured, the insurer will apply an excess to each stain event, so a claim is not possible.

The Tribunal must take depreciation into account. This was a two-and-a-half- year tenancy. Five people lived at the premises – the tenants, their adult child and two other younger children.

The photos produced in evidence show that some stains remain and are clearly visible. But the carpet appears otherwise functional. As I have noted, a new tenancy has started and continues without new carpet being laid.

Because the carpet has not been replaced, a new tenancy has commenced, and allowing for depreciation and fair wear and tear (but accepting that the degree of staining went beyond reasonable fair wear and tear), I award the landlord compensation of $1,800.00 for the damage to the carpet.

The carpet might not require replacement if, as the tenant’s carpet cleaner suggests, the stains fade with time. But even if not replaced, there has still been a loss of amenity value for the landlord in premises that are still quite new, just under three years old.

As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression for his wife, but not for him. The criteria for name suppression are not met as the tenant has not been successful in defending the application – see section 95A RTA. Therefore, no order is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753794 — net $1,929.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (consent	$108.71	Water rates (consent
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,800.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,929.15
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,929.15

Order

Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune to pay Vista Realty Limited as agent for Golden Property Investment Ltd $1,929.15 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (6413496-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Vista Realty Limited as agent for Golden Property Investment Ltd: $1,929.15 Martin Van Lune and Melinda Van Lune: $1,670.85
The application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Parker and Mr Widdup represented the landlord. Mr Van Lune represented the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 21 May 2021 and ended on 26 November 2023.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. I have allowed that amount by consent.
The landlord withdrew a claim for cleaning costs.
The only issue in dispute is the landlord’s claim for the cost of carpet replacement.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant accepted that the carpets in the three bedrooms were stained. He had the carpets cleaned and treated for stain removal. The stains were not fully removed though the evidence he produced suggests that they will fade with time.
The landlord seeks the cost of carpet replacement for the three bedrooms with the same carpet as was laid when the premises were newly built. This was the first tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that the staining is such that carpet replacement is necessary.
The carpets have not been replaced because the identical carpet was not available. Also, a new tenancy has started.
While the landlord is insured, the insurer will apply an excess to each stain event, so a claim is not possible.
The Tribunal must take depreciation into account. This was a two-and-a-half- year tenancy. Five people lived at the premises – the tenants, their adult child and two other younger children.
The photos produced in evidence show that some stains remain and are clearly visible. But the carpet appears otherwise functional. As I have noted, a new tenancy has started and continues without new carpet being laid.
Because the carpet has not been replaced, a new tenancy has commenced, and allowing for depreciation and fair wear and tear (but accepting that the degree of staining went beyond reasonable fair wear and tear), I award the landlord compensation of $1,800.00 for the damage to the carpet.
The carpet might not require replacement if, as the tenant’s carpet cleaner suggests, the stains fade with time. But even if not replaced, there has still been a loss of amenity value for the landlord in premises that are still quite new, just under three years old.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression for his wife, but not for him. The criteria for name suppression are not met as the tenant has not been successful in defending the application – see section 95A RTA. Therefore, no order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753794 — Property damage at 6 Drovers Way, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753794 — Property damage at 6 Drovers Way, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

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