What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019290?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Ryan to pay Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel

How much money was awarded in case 5019290?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019290?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610097-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019290?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Ryan to pay Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel

How much money was awarded in case 5019290?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019290?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610097-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Pinot Noir Court, Omarama, Omarama 9412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019290 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019290 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess wall	$650.00	Insurance excess wall
Insurance excess doors	$650.00	Insurance excess doors
Net award	$1,300.00
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,300.00

Order

Lisa Ryan to pay Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel As Agent For Owner $1,300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6165436-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel As Agent For Owner: $1,300.00 Lisa Ryan: $340.00
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August 2019, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $650.00 on each and every claim.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that the carpet was damaged beyond repair or cleaning during the course of the tenancy. The landlord said that the carpet had been installed in 2008. A claim for the damage to the landlord's insurer was declined. The landlord said that a number of areas of the carpet had been damaged by what appeared to be a dog urine. The tenant has then attempted to clean the carpet. Those attempts have, according to the reports provided by the landlord, caused further damage by way of the fibre to the carpet being burnt away.
The tenant’s evidence was there they had assisted a friend by caring for a dog for a limited period of five weeks. The tenant accepted that the dog had unfortunately urinated in the hallway, lounge and corners of the house. The tenant could not say how many individual incidents of urination there had been. The tenant had attempted to clean the stains themselves. Those attempts had unfortunately caused further damage. They had used specific chemicals which were supposed to remove the urine and associated smell and also a rug doctor. The damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said that their insurers had declined their claim for insurance as the damage had been caused by a pet. Damage caused by pets was not covered by their insurers. I note that some of the damage has been caused by the tenant’s attempts to reinstate the carpet.
In considering the landlord’s claim, I must take 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The IRD depreciation schedule for residential tenancies records that at best, the estimated useful life expectancy of a carpet with a modular nylon tile construction is 15.5 years. Carpets with other than modular nylon life construction have an estimated life expectancy of 8 years. This was a wool carpet. The carpet was more than 15 years old. Given the depreciation schedule, I find that the carpet no longer had any value and accordingly the claim against the tenant for replacement of the carpet throughout the house is dismissed.
The landlord provided evidence of a hole in a wall in the garage. A quote was provided from a contractor for repairs in the sum of $1,552.50. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. A claim for the damage was made to the landlord’s insurers. That claim was accepted. The excess payable on the claim is $650.00. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord $650.00.
The landlord provided evidence of damage to a double door between the lounge and the patio. The contractor’s evidence was that the door had broken bi-fold gear and bi-fold rollers with signs of misuse or from being forced opened and closed. It appeared that CRC had been used on the locks and running gear which erodes the gear and causes failure. The claim for repairs to the door was $841.68.
The tenant said that the doors had been inspected during the course of the tenancy as they had never operated correctly. The landlord replied that the issues with the doors noticed during previous inspections, was with the door handles and not the bifold gear and rollers, which was what now required repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 16 The landlord has made a claim under the insurance policy. That claim was accepted. The policy excess of $650.00 applies. The tenant is ordered to pay $650.00 to the landlord in compensation.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings and accordingly the applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019290 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess wall	$650.00	Insurance excess wall
Insurance excess doors	$650.00	Insurance excess doors
Net award	$1,300.00
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,300.00

Order

Lisa Ryan to pay Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel As Agent For Owner $1,300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6165436-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackenzie Country Real Estate Limited T/A Lj Hooker Twizel As Agent For Owner: $1,300.00 Lisa Ryan: $340.00
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August 2019, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $650.00 on each and every claim.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that the carpet was damaged beyond repair or cleaning during the course of the tenancy. The landlord said that the carpet had been installed in 2008. A claim for the damage to the landlord's insurer was declined. The landlord said that a number of areas of the carpet had been damaged by what appeared to be a dog urine. The tenant has then attempted to clean the carpet. Those attempts have, according to the reports provided by the landlord, caused further damage by way of the fibre to the carpet being burnt away.
The tenant’s evidence was there they had assisted a friend by caring for a dog for a limited period of five weeks. The tenant accepted that the dog had unfortunately urinated in the hallway, lounge and corners of the house. The tenant could not say how many individual incidents of urination there had been. The tenant had attempted to clean the stains themselves. Those attempts had unfortunately caused further damage. They had used specific chemicals which were supposed to remove the urine and associated smell and also a rug doctor. The damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said that their insurers had declined their claim for insurance as the damage had been caused by a pet. Damage caused by pets was not covered by their insurers. I note that some of the damage has been caused by the tenant’s attempts to reinstate the carpet.
In considering the landlord’s claim, I must take 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The IRD depreciation schedule for residential tenancies records that at best, the estimated useful life expectancy of a carpet with a modular nylon tile construction is 15.5 years. Carpets with other than modular nylon life construction have an estimated life expectancy of 8 years. This was a wool carpet. The carpet was more than 15 years old. Given the depreciation schedule, I find that the carpet no longer had any value and accordingly the claim against the tenant for replacement of the carpet throughout the house is dismissed.
The landlord provided evidence of a hole in a wall in the garage. A quote was provided from a contractor for repairs in the sum of $1,552.50. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. A claim for the damage was made to the landlord’s insurers. That claim was accepted. The excess payable on the claim is $650.00. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord $650.00.
The landlord provided evidence of damage to a double door between the lounge and the patio. The contractor’s evidence was that the door had broken bi-fold gear and bi-fold rollers with signs of misuse or from being forced opened and closed. It appeared that CRC had been used on the locks and running gear which erodes the gear and causes failure. The claim for repairs to the door was $841.68.
The tenant said that the doors had been inspected during the course of the tenancy as they had never operated correctly. The landlord replied that the issues with the doors noticed during previous inspections, was with the door handles and not the bifold gear and rollers, which was what now required repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 16 The landlord has made a claim under the insurance policy. That claim was accepted. The policy excess of $650.00 applies. The tenant is ordered to pay $650.00 to the landlord in compensation.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings and accordingly the applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019290 — Property damage at 11 Pinot Noir Court, Omarama, Omarama 9412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019290 — Property damage at 11 Pinot Noir Court, Omarama, Omarama 9412

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