What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952953?

The tribunal order states: Trina Milner and Richard Ball to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4952953?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door - Repainting: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Garage Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10990211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952953?

The tribunal order states: Trina Milner and Richard Ball to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4952953?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door - Repainting: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Garage Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10990211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Makura Road, Long Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952953 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952953 — net $2,492.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Oven, missed areas dusting	$130.00	Cleaning: Oven, missed areas dusting
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,650.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Garage carpet	$300.00	Replace furnishings: Garage carpet
Repairs: Laundry door - repainting	$100.00	Repairs: Laundry door - repainting
Lawns and Garden work	$25.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: reduced - failure to mitigate loss	$260.00	Lock/key replacement: reduced - failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,492.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,492.00

Order

Trina Milner and Richard Ball to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill $2,492.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6468611-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill: $2,492.00 Trina Milner and Richard Ball: $1,188.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
This tenancy commenced 18 November 2022 and ended 17 July 2024. A detailed “Cat conditions” special term was added to the tenancy agreement. That granted the tenant permission to have her one pet cat at the premises.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy (via a professional cleaner), but the oven was not cleaned and some areas required some further cleaning, mostly likely, in my view, after furniture or such was removed. The invoice for cleaning was $287.99 but based on the photos supporting the claim I consider a partial award of $130.00 commensurate with the reasonable effort and cost established by the evidence.
The tenant did not return the key and garage remotes. The main entry was via an electronic keypad. The key and remotes were not in regular use. The landlord incurred a locksmith cost of $395.00 but given the infrequent use, and subsequent confirmation by the tenant and her family that they had the keys I have some concern, in this circumstance, the landlord should have enquired of the tenant first before incurring the cost of a locksmith. No security concerns prompted the call out and the need to mitigate a loss (see s 49 RTA) makes some cost sharing appropriate and I award $260.00 towards the cost incurred.
The landlord claimed $100.00 for garden work. The bulk of that was in attending to a bamboo shelter belt. This is considered a landlord responsibility, but I have accepted some minor garden areas of tenant responsibility required attention and award $25.00 towards that cost.
The claim for carpet cleaning was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Pet damage was excluded from the landlord’s insurance policy.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet (house).
The tenant had a pet cat. This was permitted under the tenancy agreement. At the end of the tenancy an apparent smell of urine, mostly likely from the cat, was noticed. An attempt to deodorise and remove the smell was unsuccessfully attempted. The recommendation noted multiple areas of impact in a bedroom, wardrobe and garage. The writer suggested replacing the carpet and underlay in the damaged area, ensuring the wooden floor was also sealed and varnished before any replacement carpet and underlay was installed.
The cost of replacement and the pre-sealing of the wooden floor was $2,645.00. I consider the sealing to include an element of betterment. It would have been preferable to have the floor sealed earlier. That might have mitigated some of the eventual damage.
There was no noticeable smell observed or reports during the tenancy. The tenant commented that the owner, who lived there previously, had a cat as well. That may be so but there was no comment on entry regarding any legacy cat urine smell.
I do not consider the urination was obvious given the locations. While I accept the cat may not have behaved in such a way before or after this tenancy it is fairly well recognised that circumstances and changes in routine or location can lead to changes in pet urination. If the prior presence of another cat was likely to trigger some response I do not consider it something the landlord should have to anticipate and pretreat carpet for legacy markings or urine.
The age and type of carpet was uncertain. The premises was built sometime during the 2010s. It appeared in good condition prior to the tenancy and not in a high-traffic area.
I have allowed for replacement cost of the carpet but I have considered depreciation for age, the prior history of a resident cat, and the invoiced component for floor sealing as betterment. I determined a reasonable tenant contribution towards the cost to be $1,650.00. Carpet (garage)
The garage was not used for vehicle parking. It had a type of carpet (unknown) laid and the area was used as a study and storage area.
A report on the carpet was provided by Clean and Fix, dated 15 August 2024. The report confirmed a strong smell of urine and pet hair in the carpet. It described the carpet as a “glued-down product” but no age of the carpet was provided.
The carpet was glued and grinding of the floor was required after removal and prior to replacement. Marine carpet was recommended.
The age and type of carpet was uncertain. The premises was built sometime during the 2010s. The use of the garage as an extra room was obvious. That does not change the purpose of that room to be a garage, or put another way, given a garage door remote was provided I can see no legal impediment to parking a vehicle in the garage if the tenant so choose. The existing carpet was of a type and installed such that it is not likely to be house quality. I consider here that the economic life of such carpet should be expected to be shorter than that replaced in the bedroom. I consider it at the end of its useful life so the subsequent replacement should attract a modest award from the tenant towards the replacement. I have determined $300.00 is an appropriate award. Laundry door
This internal door showed signs of paint removal from some scraping. The damage was at two heights. The tenant claimed it was fair wear and tear, saying she typically stored her clothes basket against it. The damage appears to have occurred over time and if the basket was causing the damage it should be have been apparent and the practice adjusted. I find the landlord has established it is more than fair wear and tear. I do however struggle with compensation for the total invoiced amount of $515.70. It included repainting of some walls. Have considered the high use area and extent of the damage of the walls I consider the tenant liability extends to $100.00 as contribution towards the cost incurred in attending to the door. The wall damage is in what appears to be high traffic areas and is considered wear and tear.
The damage and costs awarded above is for damage more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Dismissed claim
The claim for the cost of curtain cleaning was not evidentially established as a tenant liability.
The landlord sought $368.00 for the repair to three blinds. The problem was consistent across all blinds; that the weighted bar at the base has gathered the blind or loosened from the fabric. The landlord submitted the consistency of damage across the blinds pointed to user carelessness. I prefer the contention of the tenants that the damage occurred through reasonable use of the blinds and was more a design issue. I do not find the landlord has established the damage as more than wear and tear and the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952953 — net $2,492.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Oven, missed areas dusting	$130.00	Cleaning: Oven, missed areas dusting
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,650.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Garage carpet	$300.00	Replace furnishings: Garage carpet
Repairs: Laundry door - repainting	$100.00	Repairs: Laundry door - repainting
Lawns and Garden work	$25.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: reduced - failure to mitigate loss	$260.00	Lock/key replacement: reduced - failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,492.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,492.00

Order

Trina Milner and Richard Ball to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill $2,492.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6468611-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill: $2,492.00 Trina Milner and Richard Ball: $1,188.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
This tenancy commenced 18 November 2022 and ended 17 July 2024. A detailed “Cat conditions” special term was added to the tenancy agreement. That granted the tenant permission to have her one pet cat at the premises.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy (via a professional cleaner), but the oven was not cleaned and some areas required some further cleaning, mostly likely, in my view, after furniture or such was removed. The invoice for cleaning was $287.99 but based on the photos supporting the claim I consider a partial award of $130.00 commensurate with the reasonable effort and cost established by the evidence.
The tenant did not return the key and garage remotes. The main entry was via an electronic keypad. The key and remotes were not in regular use. The landlord incurred a locksmith cost of $395.00 but given the infrequent use, and subsequent confirmation by the tenant and her family that they had the keys I have some concern, in this circumstance, the landlord should have enquired of the tenant first before incurring the cost of a locksmith. No security concerns prompted the call out and the need to mitigate a loss (see s 49 RTA) makes some cost sharing appropriate and I award $260.00 towards the cost incurred.
The landlord claimed $100.00 for garden work. The bulk of that was in attending to a bamboo shelter belt. This is considered a landlord responsibility, but I have accepted some minor garden areas of tenant responsibility required attention and award $25.00 towards that cost.
The claim for carpet cleaning was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Pet damage was excluded from the landlord’s insurance policy.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet (house).
The tenant had a pet cat. This was permitted under the tenancy agreement. At the end of the tenancy an apparent smell of urine, mostly likely from the cat, was noticed. An attempt to deodorise and remove the smell was unsuccessfully attempted. The recommendation noted multiple areas of impact in a bedroom, wardrobe and garage. The writer suggested replacing the carpet and underlay in the damaged area, ensuring the wooden floor was also sealed and varnished before any replacement carpet and underlay was installed.
The cost of replacement and the pre-sealing of the wooden floor was $2,645.00. I consider the sealing to include an element of betterment. It would have been preferable to have the floor sealed earlier. That might have mitigated some of the eventual damage.
There was no noticeable smell observed or reports during the tenancy. The tenant commented that the owner, who lived there previously, had a cat as well. That may be so but there was no comment on entry regarding any legacy cat urine smell.
I do not consider the urination was obvious given the locations. While I accept the cat may not have behaved in such a way before or after this tenancy it is fairly well recognised that circumstances and changes in routine or location can lead to changes in pet urination. If the prior presence of another cat was likely to trigger some response I do not consider it something the landlord should have to anticipate and pretreat carpet for legacy markings or urine.
The age and type of carpet was uncertain. The premises was built sometime during the 2010s. It appeared in good condition prior to the tenancy and not in a high-traffic area.
I have allowed for replacement cost of the carpet but I have considered depreciation for age, the prior history of a resident cat, and the invoiced component for floor sealing as betterment. I determined a reasonable tenant contribution towards the cost to be $1,650.00. Carpet (garage)
The garage was not used for vehicle parking. It had a type of carpet (unknown) laid and the area was used as a study and storage area.
A report on the carpet was provided by Clean and Fix, dated 15 August 2024. The report confirmed a strong smell of urine and pet hair in the carpet. It described the carpet as a “glued-down product” but no age of the carpet was provided.
The carpet was glued and grinding of the floor was required after removal and prior to replacement. Marine carpet was recommended.
The age and type of carpet was uncertain. The premises was built sometime during the 2010s. The use of the garage as an extra room was obvious. That does not change the purpose of that room to be a garage, or put another way, given a garage door remote was provided I can see no legal impediment to parking a vehicle in the garage if the tenant so choose. The existing carpet was of a type and installed such that it is not likely to be house quality. I consider here that the economic life of such carpet should be expected to be shorter than that replaced in the bedroom. I consider it at the end of its useful life so the subsequent replacement should attract a modest award from the tenant towards the replacement. I have determined $300.00 is an appropriate award. Laundry door
This internal door showed signs of paint removal from some scraping. The damage was at two heights. The tenant claimed it was fair wear and tear, saying she typically stored her clothes basket against it. The damage appears to have occurred over time and if the basket was causing the damage it should be have been apparent and the practice adjusted. I find the landlord has established it is more than fair wear and tear. I do however struggle with compensation for the total invoiced amount of $515.70. It included repainting of some walls. Have considered the high use area and extent of the damage of the walls I consider the tenant liability extends to $100.00 as contribution towards the cost incurred in attending to the door. The wall damage is in what appears to be high traffic areas and is considered wear and tear.
The damage and costs awarded above is for damage more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Dismissed claim
The claim for the cost of curtain cleaning was not evidentially established as a tenant liability.
The landlord sought $368.00 for the repair to three blinds. The problem was consistent across all blinds; that the weighted bar at the base has gathered the blind or loosened from the fabric. The landlord submitted the consistency of damage across the blinds pointed to user carelessness. I prefer the contention of the tenants that the damage occurred through reasonable use of the blinds and was more a design issue. I do not find the landlord has established the damage as more than wear and tear and the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Jassy Tutill & Jack Tutill has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952953 — Property damage at 4 Makura Road, Long Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952953 — Property damage at 4 Makura Road, Long Bay, Auckland 0630

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