What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812677?

The tribunal order states: Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel to pay Archer

How much money was awarded in case 4812677?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812677?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10757498-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812677?

The tribunal order states: Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel to pay Archer

How much money was awarded in case 4812677?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812677?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10757498-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

768 State Highway 2, Opaki, RD 1, Opaki 5881 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812677 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812677 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excesses	$1,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excesses
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,520.44

Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel to pay Archer Mchattie Ltd As The Agent For Vanessa And Julian Conway $1,520.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6322208-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Archer Mchattie Ltd As The Agent For Vanessa And Julian Conway: $1,520.44 Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel: $679.56

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.

The onus of proof is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has claimed $510 for cleaning the carpet at the end of the tenancy. He points to a clause in the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to leave the carpets, drapes and curtains to the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. It says that if they “do not meet the standard the landlord may at the landlord’s discretion have the carpets commercially cleaned and deodorised. The landlord may request the tenant pay the cost of cleaning and deodorising.”

The landlord says that the carpets were wet and smelt because the tenants had a dog inside, contrary to their verbal agreement that the any dog should be kept outside.

The landlord provided a statement from WOW Carpet Cleaning saying that the cleaned all the carpets in the house, that there was quite a lot of soiling in most rooms and there was some stain removal that needed to be done.

Included in the landlord’s photographs was one photo showing dark soiling in the corner of the lounge, next to the outlet for the TV aerial.

The tenants produced photographs showing the premises after they had cleaned the carpets with a hired machine. They acknowledge that they left the house shut up and did not turn the ventilation on. They said that houses often smell after the carpet has been cleaned.

Under section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

In the photographs provided by the tenant, the carpet appears very clean, apart from the one area in the lounge corner. The tenants say this was caused by water coming in from outside and they told the landlord about this. The landlord denies this.

The landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpets required further cleaning after the tenants left. Apart from one photograph, the landlord has not shown any photos of stains in the carpet, or shown that the further cleaning removed those stains. The matter of smell is difficult to assess, but there is no mention of smell in the letter from Wow Carpet cleaners. I am satisfied that the inside of the property was reasonably clean and tidy. I make no order for carpet cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks two insurance excesses, one for damage to the carpet and one for damage to the ceramic hob. The landlord provided photographs

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.

The tenants acknowledged that they accidentally dropped a heavy pot lid on to the ceramic stop top. They also said that their puppy had pulled at a thread in the carpet and it had created a gap (where the carpet joined).

The landlord said that the carpet was only 18 months old at the start of the tenancy. The photos show a carpet that was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy but at the end, there is a gap about 2 inches wide and 4 or 5 inches long. They said they were told by the other property manager that it is wear and tear.

On the basis of the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the damage to the stove top and to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812677 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excesses	$1,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excesses
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,520.44

Order

Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel to pay Archer Mchattie Ltd As The Agent For Vanessa And Julian Conway $1,520.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6322208-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Archer Mchattie Ltd As The Agent For Vanessa And Julian Conway: $1,520.44 Hermanus Van De Vendel and Wilhelmina Van De Vendel: $679.56

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.
The onus of proof is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has claimed $510 for cleaning the carpet at the end of the tenancy. He points to a clause in the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to leave the carpets, drapes and curtains to the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. It says that if they “do not meet the standard the landlord may at the landlord’s discretion have the carpets commercially cleaned and deodorised. The landlord may request the tenant pay the cost of cleaning and deodorising.”
The landlord says that the carpets were wet and smelt because the tenants had a dog inside, contrary to their verbal agreement that the any dog should be kept outside.
The landlord provided a statement from WOW Carpet Cleaning saying that the cleaned all the carpets in the house, that there was quite a lot of soiling in most rooms and there was some stain removal that needed to be done.
Included in the landlord’s photographs was one photo showing dark soiling in the corner of the lounge, next to the outlet for the TV aerial.
The tenants produced photographs showing the premises after they had cleaned the carpets with a hired machine. They acknowledge that they left the house shut up and did not turn the ventilation on. They said that houses often smell after the carpet has been cleaned.
Under section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In the photographs provided by the tenant, the carpet appears very clean, apart from the one area in the lounge corner. The tenants say this was caused by water coming in from outside and they told the landlord about this. The landlord denies this.
The landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpets required further cleaning after the tenants left. Apart from one photograph, the landlord has not shown any photos of stains in the carpet, or shown that the further cleaning removed those stains. The matter of smell is difficult to assess, but there is no mention of smell in the letter from Wow Carpet cleaners. I am satisfied that the inside of the property was reasonably clean and tidy. I make no order for carpet cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks two insurance excesses, one for damage to the carpet and one for damage to the ceramic hob. The landlord provided photographs
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.
The tenants acknowledged that they accidentally dropped a heavy pot lid on to the ceramic stop top. They also said that their puppy had pulled at a thread in the carpet and it had created a gap (where the carpet joined).
The landlord said that the carpet was only 18 months old at the start of the tenancy. The photos show a carpet that was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy but at the end, there is a gap about 2 inches wide and 4 or 5 inches long. They said they were told by the other property manager that it is wear and tear.
On the basis of the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the damage to the stove top and to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812677 — Property damage at 768 State Highway 2, Opaki, RD 1, Opaki 5881

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812677 — Property damage at 768 State Highway 2, Opaki, RD 1, Opaki 5881

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions