Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5174611 — Property damage at 33 Townshend Crescent, Halswell, Christchurch 8025
Decided 6 Jul 2025 · Published 6 Jul 2025 · Application 5174611
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Emma Gwenolene McIvor and Sam Raymond Fleming are to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited as Agent for Patricia Wilson Family Trust $927.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,855.00 (5713920-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited as Agent for Patricia Wilson Family Trust: $952.00 Emma Gwenolene Fleming and Sam Raymond Fleming: $903.00
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and payment of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of their repairing obligations and payment of the filing fee. Background
- The tenancy began in November 2018 and ended in March 2025 a period of over six years.
- The tenants occupied the premises with their three young children and a cat.
- During an inspection in 2020, the agent discovered what appeared to be evidence of an historic leak under the laundry tub which had caused water staining and mould in the cupboard below the tub.
- The tenants say that they asked the agent to deal with it, but nothing happened. The tenants did not use the cupboard either before or after the discovery.
- In mid-2024, the tenants found water on the floor of the toilet room. One of their children slipped on it and caused a hole to be made in the (soft) wall lining. A plumber attended to investigate the cause of the water and he found a leaking flush pipe for the toilet which he repaired.
- At a second attendance he found the wall linings to be soft and he found mould and evidence of water ingress behind the linings. He also tightened a cistern tap.
- Subsequently, he found a leaking connection for the tenants’ washing machine. The laundry is adjacent to the toilet room and the washing machine (and the laundry tub) back onto the wall between the two rooms.
- The condition of the toilet room was dealt with, and the lining replaced at a cost of $999.35. The landlord claims an insurance excess of $550 because, they say, the tenants were responsible for the leaking connection.
- There was staining of the master bedroom carpet during the tenancy. The landlords also say that the carpet in the lounge was contaminated by animal urine.
- The landlords produced an estimate for stain removal of the bedroom carpet and decontamination of the lounge carpet in the sum of $1,200. That work was not done.
- The landlords also produced an estimate for carpet replacement. There is a separate estimate for replacing the carpet in the lounge and bedroom in the sum of $3687. The landlords said that the carpet throughout the premises has been replaced, but no final invoice was produced.
- There was damage to walls in the lounge and hall during the tenancy. The tenants tried to repair the damage, but it was not completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlords produced an invoice in the sum of $1,771.88 for repairing and painting three lounge walls. Relevant Law
- 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.
- Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- 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).
- 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).
- The Tribunal must consider betterment where appropriate. 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, the Tribunal considers the and condition of the damaged part or item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
- A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Discussion and Decision. Wall Damage
- The tenants accepted that they caused some wall damage. They made some penetrations which they then attempted to repair. As they said, they would have been better to leave them alone. The repairs were not satisfactory.
- The landlords claimed the cost of making good and painting two walls, one in the lounge and one in the hall. They produced an invoice in the sum of $1,811.25 including GST which refers to work to three walls in the lounge. The invoice was unsatisfactory in some respects and so the Tribunal called the tradesperson to get some clarification.
- He confirmed that he did not do any work in the hall but there was some work in the kitchen that was invoiced separately. He confirmed that he is not registered for GST. He did not explain why GST had been added to his invoice.
- Given that the claim is for only one wall in the lounge, I have awarded $525 being one third of the cost net of the GST amount. Carpet
- The tenants accepted that there was staining to the carpet in the master bedroom during the tenancy. I accept that the staining was serious enough for it to be reasonable to replace the carpet. It is unclear how old the carpet is, but it was not new at the start of the tenancy. The tenants said that the tenancy before theirs was for seven years. Carpet in the dining room was extremely worn and sun damaged. Carpet in the lounge was new at the start of the tenancy. It is reasonable to conclude that the bedroom carpet was well through its expected life, but it was in reasonable condition and not yet ready to be replaced.
- The landlords claimed that there was an odour of animal urine in the house and that the carpet throughout the house had been contaminated by the tenant’s pet cat. The tenants denied that and said that their cat went outdoors for toileting and there was a cat flap in the house from the beginning.
- The landlords relied on an invoice from Chemdry which refers to decontaminating the lounge carpet. The landlords said that the technician who came to the house went around and tested the carpet for urine with a probe and using ultraviolet light and concluded that the carpet was contaminated with urine. There were no photographs showing the presence of urine under ultraviolet light or evidence from the technician.
- The landlords confirmed that there was no sign of contamination during the tenancy.
- The landlords have not proved that the carpet was contaminated. The evidence from the invoice is not enough to prove it and if it was the tenants’ cat that had urinated throughout the house, it is unlikely that it would only be discovered when the tenancy ended.
- Doing the best I can from the invoice provided, I estimate that the cost of replacing the bedroom carpet is $1,000. I apply a 60% discount for betterment and so award $400. Toilet Room
- After the tenants found water pooled on the toilet room floor, there were three visits by the landlords’ plumber. He found a leaking valve on the water inlet pipe for the toilet and tightened it. He then found evidence of water damage to the wall lining of the wall adjacent to the laundry and some of the lining was removed. Finally, he found a leaking connection between the tap and the tenants’ washing machine. The landlords say that the leaking connection was the cause of the water damage to the linings.
- The tenants accept that the leaking connection contributed to the water damage, but they say that the leaking valve in the toilet as well as a possible leak under the laundry tub would have contributed to it as well. They were willing to accept partial liability for the water damage.
- When I explained that they were liable only for careless damage, they denied that they had been negligent. They explained that they had fitted the hoses for the washing machine properly and they even asked a relative/handyman who was at the house to check them. The washing machine went in about halfway through the tenancy.
- I accept the tenants’ evidence about the washing machine connections and find that they were fitted properly when the washing machine was installed. If they had not been, it’s likely that there would have been leaking and damage much sooner. It is likely that one of the connections loosened over time. If the tenants had seen water leaking from the connection, it is likely that they would have tightened it. I therefore find that the leaking was not a result of their carelessness and so this claim is dismissed.
- I note as well, that the cause of the water damage is unclear on the evidence provided. Tenants’ Claim
- There was water staining and some mould in the cupboard below the tub in the laundry. It is noted in an inspection report in 2020. The tenants say that they asked the landlords to do something about it but noting was done. The tenants did not use the cupboard and they did not take any steps to clean off the mould themselves. They say that the landlords were in breach of their repairing obligations and there should be an award of exemplary damages. They also say that there is some evidence that the leaking continued after the water staining and mould was discovered.
- I do not regard the condition of the cupboard to be a serious problem and it was reasonable for the landlords to see it as an historic issue. The evidence that leaking continued is unconvincing. I also doubt that the condition of the cupboard affected anyone living in the premises. I therefore dismiss the tenants’ application. Result
- The total awarded to the landlords is $925 to which I add the filing fee making $952. That will be paid to the landlords from the bond and the remainder of the bond will be paid to the tenants.