What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389083?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina to pay The Property

How much money was awarded in case 5389083?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389083?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134769-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5389083?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina to pay The Property

How much money was awarded in case 5389083?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389083?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13134769-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44C Victor Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389083 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389083 — net $428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - carpet damage	$400.00	Compensation - carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$428.00

Order

Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina to pay The Property Managers Limited $428.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $428.00 (6378553-015) to The Property Managers Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,122.00 (6378553-015) to Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced in September 2023 and ended in October 2025.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damage claim – carpet replacement
The insurance excess in this case is $1,400 and rent was $830 per week.
The landlord seeks compensation of $1081 from the bond for carpet replacement.
The landlord says the living room carpet was stained with what appears to be stains from chemicals used to clean stains from the carpet. The landlord notes that tenant tried to clean the carpets professionally, but this did not remove the stains, and the carpet cannot be repaired.
The tenant disputes causing the stains and provided a statement from Seed property care (Seed) which undertook cleaning of the carpet and said that the stains are not caused by liquid spills as there is no coloration patter typically associated with such incidents and the visible marks appear to be areas of discolouration likely resulting from moisture exposure. The information from Seed does not elaborate on what type of moisture exposure may have caused 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. the stains or identify any particular issue with the premises in relation to dampness.
On my direct question the tenants said they had not experienced moisture or dampness in the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord says the carpet is on a concrete pad and there have been no issues with mould or water retention in the living room and the current tenants have had no issue with dampness,
Pre-tenancy, mid-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports with photographs were provided in support of the claim. I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy and I’m satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proven that there is an issue with the premises that may have caused water damage to the carpet. I consider the damage was likely caused by the tenant (or someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission) carelessly placing an inappropriate liquid (perhaps cleaner) on the carpet. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said the carpet was installed in November 2021. It was therefore 4 years old at the end of this tenancy. IR265 general depreciation rates provides that carpet has an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years.
In addition, the landlord has only provided a quote in support of the claim. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amount quoted.
A new tenancy has commenced. The landlord advised that the carpet has not been replaced but will be. The stains are faint, and the carpet must still be fit for purpose given it has not been replaced with any urgency. In the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the carpet replacement being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established a loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach, a degree of loss suffered, and compensation should reflect a contribution towards the eventual replacement cost of the carpet. Having considered all the matters above, I consider $400 is appropriate to reasonably compensate the landlord for the tenant’s breach. Filing Fee, Bond and Suppression
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the filing fee. 10
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered and the balance refunded to the tenant.
On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389083 — net $428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - carpet damage	$400.00	Compensation - carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$428.00

Order

Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina to pay The Property Managers Limited $428.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $428.00 (6378553-015) to The Property Managers Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,122.00 (6378553-015) to Jonathan Lozano Rodriguez and Erika Munoz Medina immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced in September 2023 and ended in October 2025.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damage claim – carpet replacement
The insurance excess in this case is $1,400 and rent was $830 per week.
The landlord seeks compensation of $1081 from the bond for carpet replacement.
The landlord says the living room carpet was stained with what appears to be stains from chemicals used to clean stains from the carpet. The landlord notes that tenant tried to clean the carpets professionally, but this did not remove the stains, and the carpet cannot be repaired.
The tenant disputes causing the stains and provided a statement from Seed property care (Seed) which undertook cleaning of the carpet and said that the stains are not caused by liquid spills as there is no coloration patter typically associated with such incidents and the visible marks appear to be areas of discolouration likely resulting from moisture exposure. The information from Seed does not elaborate on what type of moisture exposure may have caused 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. the stains or identify any particular issue with the premises in relation to dampness.
On my direct question the tenants said they had not experienced moisture or dampness in the carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord says the carpet is on a concrete pad and there have been no issues with mould or water retention in the living room and the current tenants have had no issue with dampness,
Pre-tenancy, mid-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports with photographs were provided in support of the claim. I am satisfied this damage was likely caused during this tenancy and I’m satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proven that there is an issue with the premises that may have caused water damage to the carpet. I consider the damage was likely caused by the tenant (or someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission) carelessly placing an inappropriate liquid (perhaps cleaner) on the carpet. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said the carpet was installed in November 2021. It was therefore 4 years old at the end of this tenancy. IR265 general depreciation rates provides that carpet has an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years.
In addition, the landlord has only provided a quote in support of the claim. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amount quoted.
A new tenancy has commenced. The landlord advised that the carpet has not been replaced but will be. The stains are faint, and the carpet must still be fit for purpose given it has not been replaced with any urgency. In the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the carpet replacement being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established a loss to the level of the amount claimed.
However, I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for the tenant’s breach, a degree of loss suffered, and compensation should reflect a contribution towards the eventual replacement cost of the carpet. Having considered all the matters above, I consider $400 is appropriate to reasonably compensate the landlord for the tenant’s breach. Filing Fee, Bond and Suppression
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the filing fee. 10
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered and the balance refunded to the tenant.
On my enquiry, neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389083 — Property damage at 44C Victor Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389083 — Property damage at 44C Victor Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions