What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983990?

The tribunal order states: Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis to pay Home Sweet Home Property

How much money was awarded in case 4983990?

Flea Treatment Of Carpet: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983990?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11004801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983990?

The tribunal order states: Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis to pay Home Sweet Home Property

How much money was awarded in case 4983990?

Flea Treatment Of Carpet: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983990?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11004801-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82B Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983990 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983990 — net $736.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Flea treatment of carpet	$390.00	Flea treatment of carpet
Repairs: Carpet	$299.00	Repairs: Carpet
Water rates	$47.27	Water rates
Net award	$736.27
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$736.27

Order

Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent for Guenther and Margareta Lammer $736.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent for Guenther and Margareta Lammer: $736.27 Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis: $2,383.73

Reasons

Florian Freimath attended the hearing on behalf of himself and Jayne Lewis. Kim Hudson from Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The tenant agrees that the following costs should be deducted from the bond and paid to the landlord: a. Final water rates invoice: $47.27 b. Carpet repairs: $299.00
The tenant submits that the balance of the bond should be refunded to them in full.
The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking compensation for the following matters and amounts: a. Commercial flea treatment of carpet: $390.00 b. Replace garage door motor: $782.00
The landlord seeks that these amounts be deducted from the bond. The landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Commercial flea treatment of carpet
The tenancy began on 28 July 2022 and ended on 29 July 2024.
The tenant kept two cats at the property with the landlord’s permission.
Clause 27 of the tenancy agreement states: “... Where a pet has been permitted inside the property, the carpets must be commercially cleaned, and flea treated and/or any odours removed in order to protect the health and safety of future tenants.”
The tenant stated that the carpets were commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not have the carpets commercially treated for fleas, but flea bombed the carpet themselves.
The tenant states that there was never an issue with fleas at the property during the tenancy. The tenant states that the landlord completed a final inspection and no issues regarding fleas were noted at this time.
The landlord states that the property was re-tenanted on 2 August 2024. The new tenant raised the issue of the presence of fleas at the property in a text message to the landlord on 9 August 2024. A copy of this text message was provided to the Tribunal where the new tenant stated: “Hi Kim just to let you know – I had to flea bomb when we moved in – I had a number of them land on me in the lounge and my son is badly bitten but today I’ve just found them up in my bathroom also – I’ll have to do it again. Do you have a contact or should I just buy more bombs?...”
The landlord states that flea bombs were not sufficient to remove the fleas. The landlord had to have the carpet commercially treated for fleas at a cost of $390.00. An invoice for this amount was provided to the Tribunal. The landlord states that the new tenant does not have a pet and attributes the presence of fleas in the carpet to the previous tenant’s two cats.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim. My reasons are as follows: a. This tenancy ended on 29 July 2024 and the new tenancy began on 2 August 2024. The presence of fleas was reported to the landlord by the new tenant on 9 August 2024, which is only a period of 11 days after the tenancy ended. This short timeframe suggests there is a causal nexus between the previous tenant’s two cats and presence of fleas at the property. This is strengthened by the fact that the new tenant does not have pets. b. The landlord provided the Tribunal with email correspondence from the professional who treated the carpet for fleas. In these emails, the professional notes that flea eggs may lay dormant for up to a year and that vacuuming can break open eggs that are lying around. This might explain why the tenant did not experience any issues with fleas themselves during the tenancy however, after thoroughly cleaning and vacuuming the property at the end of the tenancy, there was suddenly an issue with fleas for the new tenant.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $390.00 for commercial flea treatment of the carpet is granted in full. Replacement garage door motor
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the garage door motor and seeks compensation of $782.00 to replace it with a new motor. The tenant denies that they damaged the garage door motor.
The landlord had a new garage door motor installed in March 2023.
In November 2023, the tenant reported an issue with the dishwasher in the kitchen. The kitchen sits atop the garage. The tenant states that the dishwasher was leaking due to a blocked pipe. The tenant states that they had towels on the floor to mop up the excess water when contractors visited the property to fix the dishwasher.
The landlord states that the issue with the dishwasher was only reported as a blocked pipe. The landlord states that the contractors who visited the property to fix the dishwasher never reported any excess water.
Sometime in April 2024, the tenant reported to the landlord that the garage motor was not working. The landlord attempted to have the motor repaired or replaced under warranty, as it had only been just over one year since a new motor was installed. A contractor was sent to the property to assess the motor and the landlord’s claim under warranty was declined. This was because the contractor concluded that the damage was due to moisture.
The tenant advised the landlord that the garage motor might have been damaged when the dishwasher leaked and this would explain the presence of moisture in the motor. The tenant stated that they very rarely opened the garage door, as they did not store their cars inside. This was the reason for the delay between reporting the leaking dishwasher and the broken garage door motor to the landlord. The tenant states that their claim that the leaking dishwasher might have damaged the garage door motor was only a theory. They do not know for certain how the motor was damaged.
The landlord claims the leaking dishwasher could not have damaged the garage door motor, as there was no damage sustained to the ceiling of the garage where the motor sits. The landlord states that if the motor was damaged from the leaking dishwasher, it follows that the ceiling of the garage would also have shown signs of water damage, which it did not.
The tenant was firm in their evidence that they did not damage the garage door motor. The tenant strongly denied using water at all inside the garage and stated that they used the garage to store expensive possessions.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for damaging the garage door motor. There is no supporting, objective evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant is responsible. The landlord even conducted their own investigation at the time to try to determine the cause of the damage and were unable to confirm how the damage occurred or whether the tenant was responsible.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the garage door motor is dismissed. Filing fee
Neither party has been wholly successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the other party the cost of the filing fee. Each party shall bare their own cost of filing their application. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord’s written application included a request for name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant the landlord name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983990 — net $736.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Flea treatment of carpet	$390.00	Flea treatment of carpet
Repairs: Carpet	$299.00	Repairs: Carpet
Water rates	$47.27	Water rates
Net award	$736.27
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$736.27

Order

Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent for Guenther and Margareta Lammer $736.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent for Guenther and Margareta Lammer: $736.27 Florian Freimuth and Jayne Lewis: $2,383.73

Reasons

Florian Freimath attended the hearing on behalf of himself and Jayne Lewis. Kim Hudson from Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The tenant agrees that the following costs should be deducted from the bond and paid to the landlord: a. Final water rates invoice: $47.27 b. Carpet repairs: $299.00
The tenant submits that the balance of the bond should be refunded to them in full.
The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking compensation for the following matters and amounts: a. Commercial flea treatment of carpet: $390.00 b. Replace garage door motor: $782.00
The landlord seeks that these amounts be deducted from the bond. The landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Commercial flea treatment of carpet
The tenancy began on 28 July 2022 and ended on 29 July 2024.
The tenant kept two cats at the property with the landlord’s permission.
Clause 27 of the tenancy agreement states: “... Where a pet has been permitted inside the property, the carpets must be commercially cleaned, and flea treated and/or any odours removed in order to protect the health and safety of future tenants.”
The tenant stated that the carpets were commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not have the carpets commercially treated for fleas, but flea bombed the carpet themselves.
The tenant states that there was never an issue with fleas at the property during the tenancy. The tenant states that the landlord completed a final inspection and no issues regarding fleas were noted at this time.
The landlord states that the property was re-tenanted on 2 August 2024. The new tenant raised the issue of the presence of fleas at the property in a text message to the landlord on 9 August 2024. A copy of this text message was provided to the Tribunal where the new tenant stated: “Hi Kim just to let you know – I had to flea bomb when we moved in – I had a number of them land on me in the lounge and my son is badly bitten but today I’ve just found them up in my bathroom also – I’ll have to do it again. Do you have a contact or should I just buy more bombs?...”
The landlord states that flea bombs were not sufficient to remove the fleas. The landlord had to have the carpet commercially treated for fleas at a cost of $390.00. An invoice for this amount was provided to the Tribunal. The landlord states that the new tenant does not have a pet and attributes the presence of fleas in the carpet to the previous tenant’s two cats.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim. My reasons are as follows: a. This tenancy ended on 29 July 2024 and the new tenancy began on 2 August 2024. The presence of fleas was reported to the landlord by the new tenant on 9 August 2024, which is only a period of 11 days after the tenancy ended. This short timeframe suggests there is a causal nexus between the previous tenant’s two cats and presence of fleas at the property. This is strengthened by the fact that the new tenant does not have pets. b. The landlord provided the Tribunal with email correspondence from the professional who treated the carpet for fleas. In these emails, the professional notes that flea eggs may lay dormant for up to a year and that vacuuming can break open eggs that are lying around. This might explain why the tenant did not experience any issues with fleas themselves during the tenancy however, after thoroughly cleaning and vacuuming the property at the end of the tenancy, there was suddenly an issue with fleas for the new tenant.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $390.00 for commercial flea treatment of the carpet is granted in full. Replacement garage door motor
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the garage door motor and seeks compensation of $782.00 to replace it with a new motor. The tenant denies that they damaged the garage door motor.
The landlord had a new garage door motor installed in March 2023.
In November 2023, the tenant reported an issue with the dishwasher in the kitchen. The kitchen sits atop the garage. The tenant states that the dishwasher was leaking due to a blocked pipe. The tenant states that they had towels on the floor to mop up the excess water when contractors visited the property to fix the dishwasher.
The landlord states that the issue with the dishwasher was only reported as a blocked pipe. The landlord states that the contractors who visited the property to fix the dishwasher never reported any excess water.
Sometime in April 2024, the tenant reported to the landlord that the garage motor was not working. The landlord attempted to have the motor repaired or replaced under warranty, as it had only been just over one year since a new motor was installed. A contractor was sent to the property to assess the motor and the landlord’s claim under warranty was declined. This was because the contractor concluded that the damage was due to moisture.
The tenant advised the landlord that the garage motor might have been damaged when the dishwasher leaked and this would explain the presence of moisture in the motor. The tenant stated that they very rarely opened the garage door, as they did not store their cars inside. This was the reason for the delay between reporting the leaking dishwasher and the broken garage door motor to the landlord. The tenant states that their claim that the leaking dishwasher might have damaged the garage door motor was only a theory. They do not know for certain how the motor was damaged.
The landlord claims the leaking dishwasher could not have damaged the garage door motor, as there was no damage sustained to the ceiling of the garage where the motor sits. The landlord states that if the motor was damaged from the leaking dishwasher, it follows that the ceiling of the garage would also have shown signs of water damage, which it did not.
The tenant was firm in their evidence that they did not damage the garage door motor. The tenant strongly denied using water at all inside the garage and stated that they used the garage to store expensive possessions.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for damaging the garage door motor. There is no supporting, objective evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant is responsible. The landlord even conducted their own investigation at the time to try to determine the cause of the damage and were unable to confirm how the damage occurred or whether the tenant was responsible.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the garage door motor is dismissed. Filing fee
Neither party has been wholly successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the other party the cost of the filing fee. Each party shall bare their own cost of filing their application. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord’s written application included a request for name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983990 — Property damage at 82B Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983990 — Property damage at 82B Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions