What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4576890 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4576890?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4576890?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4576890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9319990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4576890 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4576890?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4576890?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4576890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9319990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4576890 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was properly notified about the hearing, so the hearing went ahead.
The landlord has applied for the cost of replacing carpet following the end of the tenancy. This is because the house smelled of cat urine and the smell could not be removed by professional carpet cleaning.
To be successful, the landlord must prove that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 virtual certainty.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, two dogs that were permitted to be on the premises extensively stained the carpets. The High Court held that, just because the landlord allowed dogs to be on the premises, did not mean he assumed all risk of damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on the tenants’ assurance that the dogs were house-trained. At most he had accepted there would be greater wear and tear at the property because of the dogs.
The Court found that by allowing the dogs to remain inside, where it was certain they would continue to “perform natural bodily functions”, the tenants had intentionally caused the ensuing damage to the carpet.
In the present case, the landlord submitted that there was a bad smell of cat urine at the end of the tenancy. He said he worked on the house for six weeks after the tenant moved out, and the smell never disappeared. He provided me with an email from Jae which confirmed there was a strong cat urine smell when they were there on 13 April 2023, and that it could not be removed by cleaning and deodorising.
The house was on the market and the selling agent emailed the landlord on 21 April to say the carpet still smelled, despite airing and using plug in products. She also provided a statement which said recarpeting was required to make the house saleable, and that the odour disappeared when the carpets were removed. The carpets were replaced before the sale.
The landlord has proved there was a cat urine smell that could not be removed by cleaning. It seems most likely to me the tenant damaged the carpets during the tenancy, and that this was intentional damage. This is because there was a smell in almost every room which cleaning, airing and masking could not remove. It seems unlikely that this level of smell would persist if there were only one or two cat accidents during the tenancy.
Despite this, I am not going to award compensation. This is because I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation I am required to consider the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The landlord submitted the carpet was at least 15 years old and in good condition at the start of the tenancy. The IRR general depreciation rates for carpet in a residential tenancy vary depending on the type of carpet and when it was purchased, but have a maximum expected life of 15 years for the most durable carpet. Any order that the tenant pay for replacement carpet would mean there was betterment for the landlord. This claim is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was properly notified about the hearing, so the hearing went ahead.
The landlord has applied for the cost of replacing carpet following the end of the tenancy. This is because the house smelled of cat urine and the smell could not be removed by professional carpet cleaning.
To be successful, the landlord must prove that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 virtual certainty.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, two dogs that were permitted to be on the premises extensively stained the carpets. The High Court held that, just because the landlord allowed dogs to be on the premises, did not mean he assumed all risk of damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on the tenants’ assurance that the dogs were house-trained. At most he had accepted there would be greater wear and tear at the property because of the dogs.
The Court found that by allowing the dogs to remain inside, where it was certain they would continue to “perform natural bodily functions”, the tenants had intentionally caused the ensuing damage to the carpet.
In the present case, the landlord submitted that there was a bad smell of cat urine at the end of the tenancy. He said he worked on the house for six weeks after the tenant moved out, and the smell never disappeared. He provided me with an email from Jae which confirmed there was a strong cat urine smell when they were there on 13 April 2023, and that it could not be removed by cleaning and deodorising.
The house was on the market and the selling agent emailed the landlord on 21 April to say the carpet still smelled, despite airing and using plug in products. She also provided a statement which said recarpeting was required to make the house saleable, and that the odour disappeared when the carpets were removed. The carpets were replaced before the sale.
The landlord has proved there was a cat urine smell that could not be removed by cleaning. It seems most likely to me the tenant damaged the carpets during the tenancy, and that this was intentional damage. This is because there was a smell in almost every room which cleaning, airing and masking could not remove. It seems unlikely that this level of smell would persist if there were only one or two cat accidents during the tenancy.
Despite this, I am not going to award compensation. This is because I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation I am required to consider the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. The landlord submitted the carpet was at least 15 years old and in good condition at the start of the tenancy. The IRR general depreciation rates for carpet in a residential tenancy vary depending on the type of carpet and when it was purchased, but have a maximum expected life of 15 years for the most durable carpet. Any order that the tenant pay for replacement carpet would mean there was betterment for the landlord. This claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4576890 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4576890 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions