What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797532?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6483094-004) to Kavitha

How much money was awarded in case 4797532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797532?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797532?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6483094-004) to Kavitha

How much money was awarded in case 4797532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797532?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2, Unit/Flat 2, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797532 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6483094-004) to Kavitha John and Neha John immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 landlord claims that the tenants damaged the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord says that the carpet was sained and needed cleaning and eventually replacing. They say that there was a single stain on the carpet which did not come out with professional cleaning. The tenants moved out on 29 December 2023 and exit photographs were not taken until 8 January 2024.
The landlord is not claiming the cleaning invoice.
The landlord had to have the studio room carpet replaced. The claim is for the insurance excess of $650.00. The landlord stated that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide entry photographs or an entry video confirming the state of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. She says that a video was taken but she cannot locate it. The tenants say that they did not receive an inspection report.
During the hearing the tenants provided their own video taken on 29 December 2023.
The tenants strenuously deny responsibility for any damage to the carpet during their tenancy. They maintain that the stain was not there when they moved out.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In support of that claim the landlord was only able to produce exit photos taken on 8 January 2024, more than one week after the tenants moved out of the premises.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that damage to the carpet was attributable to the tenants during the course of their tenancy. At the very least the landlord should have produced entry photos in support of their application when the application was filed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression or reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is unsuccessful.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6483094-004) to Kavitha John and Neha John immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 landlord claims that the tenants damaged the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord says that the carpet was sained and needed cleaning and eventually replacing. They say that there was a single stain on the carpet which did not come out with professional cleaning. The tenants moved out on 29 December 2023 and exit photographs were not taken until 8 January 2024.
The landlord is not claiming the cleaning invoice.
The landlord had to have the studio room carpet replaced. The claim is for the insurance excess of $650.00. The landlord stated that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide entry photographs or an entry video confirming the state of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. She says that a video was taken but she cannot locate it. The tenants say that they did not receive an inspection report.
During the hearing the tenants provided their own video taken on 29 December 2023.
The tenants strenuously deny responsibility for any damage to the carpet during their tenancy. They maintain that the stain was not there when they moved out.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In support of that claim the landlord was only able to produce exit photos taken on 8 January 2024, more than one week after the tenants moved out of the premises.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that damage to the carpet was attributable to the tenants during the course of their tenancy. At the very least the landlord should have produced entry photos in support of their application when the application was filed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression or reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797532 — Cleanliness at Room 2, Unit/Flat 2, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797532 — Cleanliness at Room 2, Unit/Flat 2, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights,

At a glance

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

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