What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4863910?

The tribunal order states: Pamela Cornelius must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne

How much money was awarded in case 4863910?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flooring Treatment: $1,943.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $802.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863910?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10529032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4863910?

The tribunal order states: Pamela Cornelius must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne

How much money was awarded in case 4863910?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flooring Treatment: $1,943.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $802.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863910?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10529032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 2, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863910 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863910 — net $2,766.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet removal and replacement	$802.75	Carpet removal and replacement
Flooring treatment	$1,943.49	Flooring treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,766.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,766.68

Order

Pamela Cornelius must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited as Agent for Anne Kipa and Andrew Kipa $2,766.68 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for compensation for damage to carpet and flooring and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
This tenancy began in August 2020 and is continuing.
The tenant was permitted to have a cat in the premises on the condition that she would be responsible for any damage caused by the cat. The tenant had a mature cat and after it died, she obtained a kitten.
The landlords became concerned about the odour in the premises and found that the carpet in the lounge was stained and smelled of cat urine. When they lifted the carpet, they found that the floorboards were also stained and smelled of cat urine.
The carpet and underlay have been lifted and disposed of at a cost of $333.50. They have obtained quotations for replacing the carpet and underlay in the sum of $1,272 and for treating the floorboards in the sum $1,943.49. There is also a quotation for replacing the floorboards in the sum of $3,782.35.
The tenant accepts that there were a few incidents of the kitten urinating on the carpet, and she says that she cleaned the carpet when that happened. She no longer has the kitten. Law
Tenants 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).
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).
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation 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 Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Discussion and Decision
I made an interim order on 31 May giving the parties the opportunity to file additional evidence by 30 June. Only the landlords have done so.
The landlords’ evidence includes photographs of the lounge carpet and the flooring underneath. They show that both have been extensively stained.
There is other evidence supporting the landlords’ claim that the carpet and floorboards have been contaminated by cat urine.
I am satisfied that they have been damaged by cat urine and the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The damage must have been caused by the tenant’s kitten. There is no suggestion of any other cause.
The landlords say that the damage was intentional in the sense that the tenant must have known that it was happening, and she did not prevent it.
The premises are insured but damage by pets is excluded from cover. The damage is therefore uninsured.
I accept the landlords’ evidence of the cost of replacing the carpet and treating the floorboards. In my view, it is likely that the treatment will adequately deal with the contamination of the floorboards and their replacement should not be necessary.
I must consider the age and condition of the carpet in relation to betterment. The landlords said that the carpet was eight years old. There were stains and wear and tear noted in the ingoing report. In my view there should be a deduction from the cost of replacing the carpet of 50% to recognise that the carpet was well into its expected lifetime. The deduction applies to both the removal and replacement costs.
The total loss is therefore $2,746.24. That is more than four weeks rent ($1,560) and therefore I must consider the issue of whether this was careless or intentional damage.
Given the extent of the staining and the effect it has had, the incidents of the kitten urinating on the carpet must have been more than a few. There must have been many incidents that occurred over an extended period.
In my view, once the kitten started urinating on the carpet, the tenant had an obligation to act to prevent that happening. There are several things that the tenant could have done to prevent or at least reduce to a minimum, the times that the kitten urinated on the carpet. I note as well that there is evidence that the kitten urinated elsewhere in the premises.
I have considered the tenant’s ability to assess the situation and take the necessary action. The evidence does not suggest that she was incapable of recognising that the premises would be damaged unless she took some preventative steps.
I find, therefore, that the tenant allowed the situation to continue knowing that the carpet would be substantially damaged and that amounts to intentional damage. I have therefore awarded the landlords’ loss (subject to betterment) in full.
The landlords have not sought payment of the bond because the tenancy is ongoing.
The landlords have succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863910 — net $2,766.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet removal and replacement	$802.75	Carpet removal and replacement
Flooring treatment	$1,943.49	Flooring treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,766.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,766.68

Order

Pamela Cornelius must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited as Agent for Anne Kipa and Andrew Kipa $2,766.68 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for compensation for damage to carpet and flooring and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
This tenancy began in August 2020 and is continuing.
The tenant was permitted to have a cat in the premises on the condition that she would be responsible for any damage caused by the cat. The tenant had a mature cat and after it died, she obtained a kitten.
The landlords became concerned about the odour in the premises and found that the carpet in the lounge was stained and smelled of cat urine. When they lifted the carpet, they found that the floorboards were also stained and smelled of cat urine.
The carpet and underlay have been lifted and disposed of at a cost of $333.50. They have obtained quotations for replacing the carpet and underlay in the sum of $1,272 and for treating the floorboards in the sum $1,943.49. There is also a quotation for replacing the floorboards in the sum of $3,782.35.
The tenant accepts that there were a few incidents of the kitten urinating on the carpet, and she says that she cleaned the carpet when that happened. She no longer has the kitten. Law
Tenants 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).
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).
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation 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 Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Discussion and Decision
I made an interim order on 31 May giving the parties the opportunity to file additional evidence by 30 June. Only the landlords have done so.
The landlords’ evidence includes photographs of the lounge carpet and the flooring underneath. They show that both have been extensively stained.
There is other evidence supporting the landlords’ claim that the carpet and floorboards have been contaminated by cat urine.
I am satisfied that they have been damaged by cat urine and the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The damage must have been caused by the tenant’s kitten. There is no suggestion of any other cause.
The landlords say that the damage was intentional in the sense that the tenant must have known that it was happening, and she did not prevent it.
The premises are insured but damage by pets is excluded from cover. The damage is therefore uninsured.
I accept the landlords’ evidence of the cost of replacing the carpet and treating the floorboards. In my view, it is likely that the treatment will adequately deal with the contamination of the floorboards and their replacement should not be necessary.
I must consider the age and condition of the carpet in relation to betterment. The landlords said that the carpet was eight years old. There were stains and wear and tear noted in the ingoing report. In my view there should be a deduction from the cost of replacing the carpet of 50% to recognise that the carpet was well into its expected lifetime. The deduction applies to both the removal and replacement costs.
The total loss is therefore $2,746.24. That is more than four weeks rent ($1,560) and therefore I must consider the issue of whether this was careless or intentional damage.
Given the extent of the staining and the effect it has had, the incidents of the kitten urinating on the carpet must have been more than a few. There must have been many incidents that occurred over an extended period.
In my view, once the kitten started urinating on the carpet, the tenant had an obligation to act to prevent that happening. There are several things that the tenant could have done to prevent or at least reduce to a minimum, the times that the kitten urinated on the carpet. I note as well that there is evidence that the kitten urinated elsewhere in the premises.
I have considered the tenant’s ability to assess the situation and take the necessary action. The evidence does not suggest that she was incapable of recognising that the premises would be damaged unless she took some preventative steps.
I find, therefore, that the tenant allowed the situation to continue knowing that the carpet would be substantially damaged and that amounts to intentional damage. I have therefore awarded the landlords’ loss (subject to betterment) in full.
The landlords have not sought payment of the bond because the tenancy is ongoing.
The landlords have succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863910 — Property damage at Unit 2, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863910 — Property damage at Unit 2, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions