What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985390?

The tribunal order states: Lewis Mitchell Doherty must pay Accommodation Centre Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4985390?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985390?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11017867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985390?

The tribunal order states: Lewis Mitchell Doherty must pay Accommodation Centre Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4985390?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985390?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11017867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

446 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985390 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985390 — net $1,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess – carpet replacement	$1,100.00	Insurance excess – carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,127.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,127.00

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenant did not join the videoconference and was unable to be contacted by phone.

The tenancy ended on 9 June 2024. This application was filed on 27 August 2024.

Because the application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy ended, special service requirements apply (see. s.91A(2)). The tenant was not served in accordance with those requirements.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the e-mail address given as a service address by the tenant in the agreement, and by txt. A communication trail provided by the landlord shows continued communications between the parties about the claim and these proceedings via that same e-mail address. Most recently the tenant e-mailed the landlord on 29 October 2024, “I can make the agreed payment now but I’m not going to make a payment if this is going to get turned into a shit show, and making the payment in full is unrealistic I’ve got priority’s”

I am satisfied that the tenant is aware of the claim and of these proceedings and has been served to a currently used e-mail address. Further service is dispensed with under s.91B(2).

The tenant’s latest e-mail does not suggest that he contests the landlord’s claim. Nevertheless, in the absence of a clear agreement, it is appropriate that I require the landlord’s claim to be 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.

The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet in the premises was newly laid when this tenancy began. It says that when the tenancy ended it was found that the tenant had kept a dog or dogs at the premises, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement and that the carpet was damaged with urine.

By agreement, the costs of removing dog faeces from the premises and of cleaning the carpets were deducted from the bond, with the balance refunded to the tenant.

It was then discovered that the carpet cleaning had not been able to remove the odours from the carpet. An insurance claim was made and accepted and the carpet was replaced at a cost of $3,800.00. The landlord claims compensation for the $1,100.00 excess paid in respect of that insurance claim.

The landlord has provided photos showing extensive urine staining through to the underside of the carpet.

Because the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, I can infer that the damage to it, shown by those photos, occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear. In the absence of evidence showing another cause, I find that damage to be the tenant’s responsibility.

As the carpet was new, no allowance for depreciation is required and I find it proved that the landlord has suffered a loss to the extent of the insurance excess, which it is entitled to be compensated for.

Because Accommodation Centre Limited ss Agent for Julian Equities Limited has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985390 — net $1,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess – carpet replacement	$1,100.00	Insurance excess – carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,127.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,127.00

Order

Lewis Mitchell Doherty must pay Accommodation Centre Limited as Agent for Julian Equities Limited $1,127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenant did not join the videoconference and was unable to be contacted by phone.
The tenancy ended on 9 June 2024. This application was filed on 27 August 2024.
Because the application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy ended, special service requirements apply (see. s.91A(2)). The tenant was not served in accordance with those requirements.
Notice of the hearing was sent to the e-mail address given as a service address by the tenant in the agreement, and by txt. A communication trail provided by the landlord shows continued communications between the parties about the claim and these proceedings via that same e-mail address. Most recently the tenant e-mailed the landlord on 29 October 2024, “I can make the agreed payment now but I’m not going to make a payment if this is going to get turned into a shit show, and making the payment in full is unrealistic I’ve got priority’s”
I am satisfied that the tenant is aware of the claim and of these proceedings and has been served to a currently used e-mail address. Further service is dispensed with under s.91B(2).
The tenant’s latest e-mail does not suggest that he contests the landlord’s claim. Nevertheless, in the absence of a clear agreement, it is appropriate that I require the landlord’s claim to be 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.
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet in the premises was newly laid when this tenancy began. It says that when the tenancy ended it was found that the tenant had kept a dog or dogs at the premises, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement and that the carpet was damaged with urine.
By agreement, the costs of removing dog faeces from the premises and of cleaning the carpets were deducted from the bond, with the balance refunded to the tenant.
It was then discovered that the carpet cleaning had not been able to remove the odours from the carpet. An insurance claim was made and accepted and the carpet was replaced at a cost of $3,800.00. The landlord claims compensation for the $1,100.00 excess paid in respect of that insurance claim.
The landlord has provided photos showing extensive urine staining through to the underside of the carpet.
Because the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, I can infer that the damage to it, shown by those photos, occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear. In the absence of evidence showing another cause, I find that damage to be the tenant’s responsibility.
As the carpet was new, no allowance for depreciation is required and I find it proved that the landlord has suffered a loss to the extent of the insurance excess, which it is entitled to be compensated for.
Because Accommodation Centre Limited ss Agent for Julian Equities Limited has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985390 — Property damage at 446 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985390 — Property damage at 446 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions