What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5106450?

The tribunal order states: Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman to pay MOG Limited T/A Angel

How much money was awarded in case 5106450?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106450?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5106450?

The tribunal order states: Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman to pay MOG Limited T/A Angel

How much money was awarded in case 5106450?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106450?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5106450 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5106450 — net $1,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: lounge and hallway carpet replacement (less depreciation), including underlay replacement	$1,400.00	Repairs: lounge and hallway carpet replacement (less depreciation), including underlay replacement
Repairs: deck repairs	$200.00	Repairs: deck repairs
Net award	$1,600.00
Bond	$2,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,600.00

Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman to pay MOG Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as agent for Marisha Lohar $1,600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 (3380534-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as agent for Marisha Lohar: $1,600.00 Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman: $980.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video conference hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks refund of their bond.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

From the photos and other evidence adduced in respect of the carpets, I consider that the tenant has not left the lounge and hallway carpets in the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The quantum of the landlord’s claim to remove the stains and dog odour from the carpet is dealt with below.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: permanent dog stains and dog odour in the lounge and hallway carpets and the deck.

I find that both damage to the lounge and hallway carpet and the deck are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Only 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.

In respect of the landlord’s carpet replacement costs, I consider that it was necessary to replace the underlay as well due to the nature and extent of the damage and lasting dog odour.

As both parties were partially successful on their claims and defences, I make no order on the Tribunal filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5106450 — net $1,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: lounge and hallway carpet replacement (less depreciation), including underlay replacement	$1,400.00	Repairs: lounge and hallway carpet replacement (less depreciation), including underlay replacement
Repairs: deck repairs	$200.00	Repairs: deck repairs
Net award	$1,600.00
Bond	$2,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,600.00

Order

Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman to pay MOG Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as agent for Marisha Lohar $1,600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 (3380534-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as agent for Marisha Lohar: $1,600.00 Christy Borman and Gregory Raymond Borman: $980.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks refund of their bond.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
From the photos and other evidence adduced in respect of the carpets, I consider that the tenant has not left the lounge and hallway carpets in the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The quantum of the landlord’s claim to remove the stains and dog odour from the carpet is dealt with below.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: permanent dog stains and dog odour in the lounge and hallway carpets and the deck.
I find that both damage to the lounge and hallway carpet and the deck are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only 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.
In respect of the landlord’s carpet replacement costs, I consider that it was necessary to replace the underlay as well due to the nature and extent of the damage and lasting dog odour.
As both parties were partially successful on their claims and defences, I make no order on the Tribunal filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106450 — Property damage at 1 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106450 — Property damage at 1 Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

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