What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5414310?

The tribunal order states: KAYLENE PAHL and WAYNE PAHL must pay Sandra Olliver And John Olliver

How much money was awarded in case 5414310?

Cleaning: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $249.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet Layer: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains (by co…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Second hand car…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.02 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $94.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414310?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5414310?

The tribunal order states: KAYLENE PAHL and WAYNE PAHL must pay Sandra Olliver And John Olliver

How much money was awarded in case 5414310?

Cleaning: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $249.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet Layer: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains (by co…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Second hand car…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.02 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $94.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414310?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

158B Highsted Road, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414310 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414310 — net $4,664.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Cleaning: heatpump (by consent

$249.00

Cleaning: heatpump (by consent

Cleaning: general (by consent

$1,265.00

Cleaning: general (by consent

Oven/stove cleaning: (by consent

$200.00

Oven/stove cleaning: (by consent

Rubbish removal: (by consent

$138.02

Rubbish removal: (by consent

Rubbish removal: Damaged carpet

$94.89

Rubbish removal: Damaged carpet

Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by consent

$60.00

Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by consent

Replace furnishings: Curtains (by consent

$300.00

Replace furnishings: Curtains (by consent

Replace furnishings: Second hand carpet

$2,000.00

Replace furnishings: Second hand carpet

Replace furnishings: Carpet layer

$1,800.00

Replace furnishings: Carpet layer

Pest control: Carpet beetle spray

$210.00

Pest control: Carpet beetle spray

Filing fee reimbursement

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Bond released to Landlord by consent

$1,680.00

Bond released to Landlord by consent

Total award

$6,344.91

$1,680.00

Net award

$4,664.91

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$4,664.91

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Pahl attended by telephone on behalf of the tenants.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee 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, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for general cleaning, oven cleaning, heat pump cleaning, general rubbish removal, curtain replacement and replacement of the laundry tub.

These amounts are ordered by consent as above.

The landlord withdrew claims for repairs to scratch marks on a door and cuts to the kitchen vinyl at the hearing as these items had been able to be repaired by the landlords at no cost except for time and nominal materials.

The landlord’s claim for replacement of a curtain rail is dismissed as no evidence was provided to support the claim and the tenant denied liability for it.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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: a. The carpet throughout a number of the rooms was damaged extensively both by carpet beetle and by stains due to caged birds.

The parties agreed that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord gave evidence that the carpet in the premises was between 5 to 10 years old and was in good condition.

Photographs were provided to show that the carpet beetle damage was extensive and was predominately under furniture and other belongings.

The tenant had notified the landlord of some carpet beetle damage during the tenancy and these areas had been sprayed by the landlord. These areas had not worsened during the remainder of the tenancy, but other areas had become very bad with both beetles and larvae visible once the tenant’s possessions had been removed.

Although carpet beetle can be an issue in many properties, regular vacuuming can usually remove or redress it. Spraying can also prevent reinfestation as shown in the areas treated at this property.

On reviewing the material made available to the Tribunal, I consider that the tenant’s use of the property contributed significantly to the infestation. Both making it more likely to occur and making it impossible for the damage to be noticed during inspections due to the amount of possessions at the property and the use of some rooms for storage.

The caged birds also likely contributed to the carpet beetle issue as well as causing carpet stains. There was a significant amount of bird seed visible on the floor under the location of the bird cages as well as stains from the cages themselves and from bird water and food.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Landlord insurance inquiries indicated that no insurance cover would be available due to the nature and timing of the damage.

The labour cost of the removal of the carpet and dumping is not being claimed. The landlord removed and dumped the carpet (and other rubbish) themselves with no labour cost being on charged to the tenant.

Where professional services were required (such as carpet layer and fumigation team) they sought the lowest prices available to reduce the cost to themselves and ultimately to the tenant.

They sourced second hand carpet and obtained a very good price for the laying and underlay (which also had to be replaced).

I have not applied depreciation to the amount claimed for the carpet replacement. Although the carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy, it was replaced with second hand carpet obtained for a very reasonable price through Facebook Marketplace and installed at a very low cost.

Additionally, the landlord has charged no labour costs for their own time in bringing the property to a clean and tidy standard. They have tried to keep the cost manageable for the tenant wherever possible.

The amounts ordered for fumigation, carpet dumping, second hand carpet and carpet laying are proved.

As Sandra Olliver And John Olliver As Trustees For The Olliver Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414310 — net $4,664.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Cleaning: heatpump (by consent

$249.00

Cleaning: heatpump (by consent

Cleaning: general (by consent

$1,265.00

Cleaning: general (by consent

Oven/stove cleaning: (by consent

$200.00

Oven/stove cleaning: (by consent

Rubbish removal: (by consent

$138.02

Rubbish removal: (by consent

Rubbish removal: Damaged carpet

$94.89

Rubbish removal: Damaged carpet

Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by consent

$60.00

Replace furnishings: Laundry tub (by consent

Replace furnishings: Curtains (by consent

$300.00

Replace furnishings: Curtains (by consent

Replace furnishings: Second hand carpet

$2,000.00

Replace furnishings: Second hand carpet

Replace furnishings: Carpet layer

$1,800.00

Replace furnishings: Carpet layer

Pest control: Carpet beetle spray

$210.00

Pest control: Carpet beetle spray

Filing fee reimbursement

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Bond released to Landlord by consent

$1,680.00

Bond released to Landlord by consent

Total award

$6,344.91

$1,680.00

Net award

$4,664.91

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$4,664.91

Order

KAYLENE PAHL and WAYNE PAHL must pay Sandra Olliver And John Olliver As Trustees For The Olliver Investment Trust $4,664.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Pahl attended by telephone on behalf of the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee 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, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for general cleaning, oven cleaning, heat pump cleaning, general rubbish removal, curtain replacement and replacement of the laundry tub.
These amounts are ordered by consent as above.
The landlord withdrew claims for repairs to scratch marks on a door and cuts to the kitchen vinyl at the hearing as these items had been able to be repaired by the landlords at no cost except for time and nominal materials.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of a curtain rail is dismissed as no evidence was provided to support the claim and the tenant denied liability for it.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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: a. The carpet throughout a number of the rooms was damaged extensively both by carpet beetle and by stains due to caged birds.
The parties agreed that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpet in the premises was between 5 to 10 years old and was in good condition.
Photographs were provided to show that the carpet beetle damage was extensive and was predominately under furniture and other belongings.
The tenant had notified the landlord of some carpet beetle damage during the tenancy and these areas had been sprayed by the landlord. These areas had not worsened during the remainder of the tenancy, but other areas had become very bad with both beetles and larvae visible once the tenant’s possessions had been removed.
Although carpet beetle can be an issue in many properties, regular vacuuming can usually remove or redress it. Spraying can also prevent reinfestation as shown in the areas treated at this property.
On reviewing the material made available to the Tribunal, I consider that the tenant’s use of the property contributed significantly to the infestation. Both making it more likely to occur and making it impossible for the damage to be noticed during inspections due to the amount of possessions at the property and the use of some rooms for storage.
The caged birds also likely contributed to the carpet beetle issue as well as causing carpet stains. There was a significant amount of bird seed visible on the floor under the location of the bird cages as well as stains from the cages themselves and from bird water and food.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Landlord insurance inquiries indicated that no insurance cover would be available due to the nature and timing of the damage.
The labour cost of the removal of the carpet and dumping is not being claimed. The landlord removed and dumped the carpet (and other rubbish) themselves with no labour cost being on charged to the tenant.
Where professional services were required (such as carpet layer and fumigation team) they sought the lowest prices available to reduce the cost to themselves and ultimately to the tenant.
They sourced second hand carpet and obtained a very good price for the laying and underlay (which also had to be replaced).
I have not applied depreciation to the amount claimed for the carpet replacement. Although the carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy, it was replaced with second hand carpet obtained for a very reasonable price through Facebook Marketplace and installed at a very low cost.
Additionally, the landlord has charged no labour costs for their own time in bringing the property to a clean and tidy standard. They have tried to keep the cost manageable for the tenant wherever possible.
The amounts ordered for fumigation, carpet dumping, second hand carpet and carpet laying are proved.
As Sandra Olliver And John Olliver As Trustees For The Olliver Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414310 — Cleanliness at 158B Highsted Road, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414310 — Cleanliness at 158B Highsted Road, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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