What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5385421?

The tribunal order states: Tahlae Michaela Thomsen Peagram must pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5385421?

Cleaning: $462.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5385421?

The tribunal order states: Tahlae Michaela Thomsen Peagram must pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5385421?

Cleaning: $462.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

118D Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385421 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385421 — net $562.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$462.88	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Net award	$562.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$562.88

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenant confirmed that she had the carpets steam cleaned by a friend. Her photographic evidence confirmed this.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that despite the tenant’s efforts, there some areas of staining to carpets in two bedrooms and the lounge.

On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that there were stains in the carpet that happened during the tenancy and that a specialist carpet clean was required to remove them.

The amount claimed by the landlord is proven.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence of damage to the walls throughout the property. These were scuff marks, scrapes and some indentations. The Ingoing Report does not disclose any significant damage to the walls.

The tenant provided photographic evidence that she had repaired damage to a wall in the lounge. She advised that this was the only repair which the previous property manager had requested on her leaving the property. The tenant lived at the property with her two children for nearly two and a half years.

The evidence indicates that there was extensive, superficial damage to the walls of the property. It is the careless damage of a property housing a family. Its extent indicates that some of the damage goes beyond fair wear and tear. However, a proportion of the damage is fair wear and tear which can be expected in a property occupied by a family.

The amount claimed by the landlord is modest. It is fair that the tenant meets a portion of the cost incurred and an appropriate sum is awarded to the landlord.

The landlord gave evidence that there was a strong smell of cat urine in two bedrooms. She provided inconclusive photographic evidence and a quote for the replacement of the carpet. The work has not been completed and the property has been relet.

The tenant denied having a pet at the property and noted that the tenancy agreement prohibited pets. She was not aware of any cats entering the property and denied that there was any smell of cat urine during or at the end of the tenancy.

The evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that it is more likely than not that any damage to the carpet was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal of the damage. In addition, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord has suffered any loss as the carpet has not been replaced and the property has been relet in its current condition.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385421 — net $562.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$462.88	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Net award	$562.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$562.88

Order

Tahlae Michaela Thomsen Peagram must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Donald And Joan Gordon $562.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$462.88 Repairs$100.00 Total award$562.88 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$562.88

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant confirmed that she had the carpets steam cleaned by a friend. Her photographic evidence confirmed this.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that despite the tenant’s efforts, there some areas of staining to carpets in two bedrooms and the lounge.
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that there were stains in the carpet that happened during the tenancy and that a specialist carpet clean was required to remove them.
The amount claimed by the landlord is proven.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence of damage to the walls throughout the property. These were scuff marks, scrapes and some indentations. The Ingoing Report does not disclose any significant damage to the walls.
The tenant provided photographic evidence that she had repaired damage to a wall in the lounge. She advised that this was the only repair which the previous property manager had requested on her leaving the property. The tenant lived at the property with her two children for nearly two and a half years.
The evidence indicates that there was extensive, superficial damage to the walls of the property. It is the careless damage of a property housing a family. Its extent indicates that some of the damage goes beyond fair wear and tear. However, a proportion of the damage is fair wear and tear which can be expected in a property occupied by a family.
The amount claimed by the landlord is modest. It is fair that the tenant meets a portion of the cost incurred and an appropriate sum is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord gave evidence that there was a strong smell of cat urine in two bedrooms. She provided inconclusive photographic evidence and a quote for the replacement of the carpet. The work has not been completed and the property has been relet.
The tenant denied having a pet at the property and noted that the tenancy agreement prohibited pets. She was not aware of any cats entering the property and denied that there was any smell of cat urine during or at the end of the tenancy.
The evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that it is more likely than not that any damage to the carpet was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal of the damage. In addition, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord has suffered any loss as the carpet has not been replaced and the property has been relet in its current condition.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385421 — Cleanliness at 118D Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385421 — Cleanliness at 118D Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

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