What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960555?

The tribunal order states: Oxygen Rentals Limited Anna Crawford must pay Simone Ann Sail $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4960555?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960555?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11064665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960555?

The tribunal order states: Oxygen Rentals Limited Anna Crawford must pay Simone Ann Sail $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4960555?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960555?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11064665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 57B Joll Road, Havelock North, Havelock North Tenancy Tribunal Case 4960555 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960555 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Oxygen Rentals Limited Anna Crawford must pay Simone Ann Sail $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 (5336190-008) to Simone Ann Sail immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In a cross-application, the landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing carpet damaged during 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 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. 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.
If a landlord can prove damage was done intentionally during the tenancy, 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. This means taking into account depreciation of the value of any item damaged. My findings
The landlord has not proven their claim. The damage was caused by Cyclone Gabrielle, not by the tenant. The evidence
The property manager stated the damaged carpet was approximately 7 to 8 years old at the start of the tenancy (5 September 2019). By the time the damage occurred in February 2023, it would have been 11 – 12 years old. The landlord stated it was not in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy, and it did have some marks.
It is not in issue that the carpet strip below the window in Bedroom 1 was damaged by water during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. On that basis alone, the landlord’s claim must fail as the damage to the carpet was not caused by the tenant. Nevertheless, the property manager argued that the damage was in fact caused by the tenant removing the wet carpet which meant the landlord was forced to replace that portion. I do not agree. The tenant’s actions to remove the damaged carpet were necessary to preserve her own belongings and furniture, her health, and arguably, to best preserve the condition of the property.
On 16 February 2023, the tenant informed the property manager of the water damage and alerted her that the issue appeared to be a hole in the external brick wall. In the same text message conversation, the tenant advised the property manager that the tenant had removed the wet pieces of carpet, being a carpet mat and a section of the carpet that sat below the mat and had only been kept in place with carpet tape. The property manager responded, “Ok thank you when I can I will try and get a builder there.”
The tenant says the carpet tape had become wet and had lost its stickiness. She did not remove any nails or tacks. In the same text message conversation on 16 February 2023, the tenant sent the property manager photos of the sections where the carpet had been removed which show a strip of concrete was exposed.
The landlord claims the tenant should reimburse the landlord $550 towards the cost of replacing the carpet strips. The property manager says $550 was the amount of the insurance excess, however, the landlord did not make an insurance claim. The property manager says the landlord could not make an insurance claim because they did not file a claim in time. The property manager says the landlord did not file a claim because they understood from the tenant that the carpet had dried out.
During the hearing, the property manager conceded the landlord’s failure to claim insurance within the necessary claim period was a decision for the landlord. On 16 February 2023 the landlord (via their agent, the property manager) was made aware water had damaged the carpet in Bedroom 1. It was therefore a matter for the property manager and/or landlord to investigate the water damage and determine whether or not to make an insurance claim. The tenant is not responsible for the landlord’s failure to claim insurance in time.
After the tenant moved out, the landlord elected to replace all of the carpet in Bedroom 1, at a cost of $1,448.44. The landlord has not filed an invoice showing the cost of the full replacement, but did file a quote for $899.30 which the property manager stated was a quote for replacement of the strip of carpet only.
The tenant is not responsible for the cost, or any portion of the cost, of replacing the carpet in Bedroom 1. The damage to the carpet was not caused by the tenant, it was caused by water ingress during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. The landlord’s failure to claim insurance for the damage was a decision for the landlord, who was promptly informed of the damage on 16 February 2023.
The tenant is entitled to a full refund of the bond.

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

Given the tenant has wholly succeeded in their claim, the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960555 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Oxygen Rentals Limited Anna Crawford must pay Simone Ann Sail $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 (5336190-008) to Simone Ann Sail immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In a cross-application, the landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing carpet damaged during 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 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. 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.
If a landlord can prove damage was done intentionally during the tenancy, 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. This means taking into account depreciation of the value of any item damaged. My findings
The landlord has not proven their claim. The damage was caused by Cyclone Gabrielle, not by the tenant. The evidence
The property manager stated the damaged carpet was approximately 7 to 8 years old at the start of the tenancy (5 September 2019). By the time the damage occurred in February 2023, it would have been 11 – 12 years old. The landlord stated it was not in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy, and it did have some marks.
It is not in issue that the carpet strip below the window in Bedroom 1 was damaged by water during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. On that basis alone, the landlord’s claim must fail as the damage to the carpet was not caused by the tenant. Nevertheless, the property manager argued that the damage was in fact caused by the tenant removing the wet carpet which meant the landlord was forced to replace that portion. I do not agree. The tenant’s actions to remove the damaged carpet were necessary to preserve her own belongings and furniture, her health, and arguably, to best preserve the condition of the property.
On 16 February 2023, the tenant informed the property manager of the water damage and alerted her that the issue appeared to be a hole in the external brick wall. In the same text message conversation, the tenant advised the property manager that the tenant had removed the wet pieces of carpet, being a carpet mat and a section of the carpet that sat below the mat and had only been kept in place with carpet tape. The property manager responded, “Ok thank you when I can I will try and get a builder there.”
The tenant says the carpet tape had become wet and had lost its stickiness. She did not remove any nails or tacks. In the same text message conversation on 16 February 2023, the tenant sent the property manager photos of the sections where the carpet had been removed which show a strip of concrete was exposed.
The landlord claims the tenant should reimburse the landlord $550 towards the cost of replacing the carpet strips. The property manager says $550 was the amount of the insurance excess, however, the landlord did not make an insurance claim. The property manager says the landlord could not make an insurance claim because they did not file a claim in time. The property manager says the landlord did not file a claim because they understood from the tenant that the carpet had dried out.
During the hearing, the property manager conceded the landlord’s failure to claim insurance within the necessary claim period was a decision for the landlord. On 16 February 2023 the landlord (via their agent, the property manager) was made aware water had damaged the carpet in Bedroom 1. It was therefore a matter for the property manager and/or landlord to investigate the water damage and determine whether or not to make an insurance claim. The tenant is not responsible for the landlord’s failure to claim insurance in time.
After the tenant moved out, the landlord elected to replace all of the carpet in Bedroom 1, at a cost of $1,448.44. The landlord has not filed an invoice showing the cost of the full replacement, but did file a quote for $899.30 which the property manager stated was a quote for replacement of the strip of carpet only.
The tenant is not responsible for the cost, or any portion of the cost, of replacing the carpet in Bedroom 1. The damage to the carpet was not caused by the tenant, it was caused by water ingress during Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. The landlord’s failure to claim insurance for the damage was a decision for the landlord, who was promptly informed of the damage on 16 February 2023.
The tenant is entitled to a full refund of the bond.

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

Given the tenant has wholly succeeded in their claim, the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960555 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 57B Joll Road, Havelock North, Havelock North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960555 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 57B Joll Road, Havelock North, Havelock North

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

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?

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions