What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648490 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 4648490?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648490?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9762573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648490 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 4648490?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648490?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9762573-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18B Te Karuwha Parade, Paihia, Paihia 0200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648490 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648490 — net $480.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition	$460.00	Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	37. I will award $460.00, which is the equivalent of one weeks’ rent.
Net award	$480.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$480.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenanted unit is a partitioned part of a leasehold property in Paihia.
Ms Bowey leases the property from [Redacted].
Ms Bowey and [The tenant/s] entered into a House Sharing Tenancy Agreement on 7 February 2023. The agreement was for a one-year fixed term tenancy commencing on 14 February 2023. The rent was $460.00 per week.
The previous tenants had a dog at the property.
In June 2023 [The tenant/s] asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy on the grounds that there was a very strong smell of pet urine from the carpet, which was making her ill. Ms Bowey agreed to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy upon four-weeks’ notice.
The tenancy ended on 4 July 2023.
[The tenant/s]’ application seeks compensation totalling $9,300.00.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 14 December 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Jurisdiction
The House Sharing Tenancy Agreement states “in the event of a dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal”.
In any tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies, the Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants 1 .
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except as specifically provided for in the RTA 2 .
One of the types of tenancies that the RTA does not apply to is: Where the premises continue to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises 3
This means that the RTA does not apply if the owner of a house brings in a boarder.
Ms Bowey understood that this exception applies to her arrangement, and this is why she uses a House Sharing Tenancy Agreement rather than a tenancy agreement.
However, the critical question is whether “the premises” are used by landlord as a place of residence during the tenancy. It is possible to have “premises within premises” 4 .
In this instance the premises rented to [The tenant/s] are an entirely self- contained part of the house. [The tenant/s] had the exclusive use of that area 1 Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 4 RTA 3 Section 5(1)(n) RTA 4 Kahi v Lucas [1996] HC81/96 during her tenancy. [The tenant/s] had no right to use or access any part of the rest of the house, where Ms Bowey lived.
Therefore it is not the case that the landlord used the premises as a place of residence during the tenancy, and the exclusion cited above does not apply.
The RTA applies to the tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Law
Landlords have a legal duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 5 .
Landlords must also provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 6 Discussion
[The tenant/s]’ claim only relates to the condition of the carpet, specifically that the carpet was contaminated with pet urine.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she discussed the smell with Ms Bowey at the beginning of the tenancy. Ms Bowey said that the smell would dissipate over time. The smell did not dissipate. She raised the issue with Ms Bowey, but Ms Bowey was not receptive to her concerns. Her health was affected. She obtained a carpet report from [carpet cleaning company], which confirmed that the carpet was contaminated and needed to be replaced. She consulted her doctor who recommended that she move out as soon as possible.
Ms Bowey submitted that: a. The previous tenant had a dog. b. She accepts that there were some incidents of dog urine on the carpet, but not to the extent that [The tenant/s] alleges. c. [The tenant/s]’ tenancy began immediately after the previous tenancy ended, so she did not have the opportunity to have the carpet professionally cleaned. [The tenant/s] was eager to move in, and her friend offered to do the cleaning, an arrangement which Ms Bowey accepted. d. She was not aware that [The tenant/s] had on-going concerns about the carpet. She understood that [The tenant/s] was using a de-odourising spray on the carpet. 5 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA e. [The tenant/s] came to her in June asking to be released from the tenancy. She was not obliged to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy, but she agreed to it. f. She did not see the [carpet cleaning company] report until August. In the meantime, she had used [carpet cleaning company] to clean the carpet after [The tenant/s] vacated. [Carpet cleaning company] made a comment on their invoice “steam clean and deodorized not much of a dog urine smell but like a wet dog smell and also I think a cat had sprayed in there once”. g. When she received the [carpet cleaning company] report in the application documents, she arranged for a local carpet business to assess the carpet. h. She re-let the premises after [The tenant/s] moved out and the new tenant has not raised any concerns about the carpet.
A smell is a difficult thing to evidence. Sometimes in disputes involving allegations of pet urine damage to carpet there is visual evidence of stains. In this instance there is no visible staining, possibly due to the colour of the carpet.
I am therefore reliant on the reports and opinions provided to me by [The tenant/s] and Ms Bowey.
[The tenant/s] is the applicant in these proceedings. She has the burden of proof. She must prove her claim to the standard of “more likely than not”.
[The tenant/s]’ most powerful piece of evidence is the [carpet cleaning company] report. I accept that the report is independent, and it is from a suitably qualified person. The report is reasonably detailed. It states: Detected most of lounge is affected with a lot of animal urine in carpet using Hydro censor [sic] Folded back carpet in corner and can see urine on the backing but cannot visibly see urine stains on top of carpet. Urine smell very strong and not pleasant it is not good for the health of anyone to be living in the property as the client has respiratory issues
Coincidentally, Ms Bowey also engaged [carpet cleaning company] to clean the carpet after the end of the tenancy. [Carpet cleaning company] invoice to Ms Bowey includes a comment that directly contradicts the report that [carpet cleaning company] provided to [The tenant/s] one month earlier. The invoice states “not much of a dog urine smell”.
In light of this contradiction, Ms Bowey took the sensible step of having another carpet company inspect and assess the carpet.
Ms Bowey engaged [carpet supplier], a carpet retailer and installer based in [town].
[Carpet supplier]’s statement, dated 30 November 2023, states: Today I visited the site in question. The tenants had been away for a few days and the property had been locked up in that time. As a rule when locked up, properties can effuse and any unwanted smells are normally exaggerated. So having Angela brief me on this dispute we walked in to assess any offensive smells. I can safely say that in my view the room might have been slightly stale due to having been locked up but there was certainly no offensive odour caused by pet urine. We uplifted an area of carpet and found no staining.
In summary: a. It is very likely (almost certain) that some dog urine damage occurred during the previous tenancy. b. It is possible, but not proven, that there may also be some ‘cat spray’ on the carpet. c. The staining has caused malodour to some extent, but the evidence provided to me shows a wide range of views about how bad the smell was. [The tenant/s] submitted that it rendered the premises uninhabitable. The [carpet cleaning company] report states that the smell was “very strong and unpleasant”. [Carpet cleaning company] carpet cleaning invoice states that there was “not much of a dog smell”, and [Carpet supplier] described it as “slightly stale” but “certainly no offensive odour caused by dog urine”. Ms Bowey’s new tenant has not expressed any concerns about the smell.
My finding is that it is not proven that the urine damage was so extensive that it necessitated replacement of the carpet. It is not proven that the premises were uninhabitable.
Ms Bowey has not breached her maintenance obligation.
However, I think that Ms Bowey did breach her duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Ms Bowey was aware that there was dog urine on the carpet. It was appropriate to have the carpet professionally cleaned before she re-let the premises. This is not a task that [The tenant/s]’ friend could do.
It is appropriate to award some compensation for this relatively minor breach.
I will award $460.00, which is the equivalent of one weeks’ rent. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee of $20.44.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on request to any party who has been “substantially successful” in the proceedings. In this instance, I have made an award of compensation that is significantly less than the amount that [The tenant/s] claimed. However, I have found that the carpet was urine damaged to some extent, and that Ms Bowey ought to have had the carpet cleaned before the start of [The tenant/s]’ tenancy. I accept that [The tenant/s] found the smell of the carpet to be extremely unpleasant and overwhelming, and that she acted appropriately on medical advice to leave the tenancy. In the circumstances I will grant the request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648490 — net $480.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition	$460.00	Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	37. I will award $460.00, which is the equivalent of one weeks’ rent.
Net award	$480.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$480.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenanted unit is a partitioned part of a leasehold property in Paihia.
Ms Bowey leases the property from [Redacted].
Ms Bowey and [The tenant/s] entered into a House Sharing Tenancy Agreement on 7 February 2023. The agreement was for a one-year fixed term tenancy commencing on 14 February 2023. The rent was $460.00 per week.
The previous tenants had a dog at the property.
In June 2023 [The tenant/s] asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy on the grounds that there was a very strong smell of pet urine from the carpet, which was making her ill. Ms Bowey agreed to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy upon four-weeks’ notice.
The tenancy ended on 4 July 2023.
[The tenant/s]’ application seeks compensation totalling $9,300.00.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 14 December 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Jurisdiction
The House Sharing Tenancy Agreement states “in the event of a dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal”.
In any tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies, the Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants 1 .
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except as specifically provided for in the RTA 2 .
One of the types of tenancies that the RTA does not apply to is: Where the premises continue to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises 3
This means that the RTA does not apply if the owner of a house brings in a boarder.
Ms Bowey understood that this exception applies to her arrangement, and this is why she uses a House Sharing Tenancy Agreement rather than a tenancy agreement.
However, the critical question is whether “the premises” are used by landlord as a place of residence during the tenancy. It is possible to have “premises within premises” 4 .
In this instance the premises rented to [The tenant/s] are an entirely self- contained part of the house. [The tenant/s] had the exclusive use of that area 1 Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 4 RTA 3 Section 5(1)(n) RTA 4 Kahi v Lucas [1996] HC81/96 during her tenancy. [The tenant/s] had no right to use or access any part of the rest of the house, where Ms Bowey lived.
Therefore it is not the case that the landlord used the premises as a place of residence during the tenancy, and the exclusion cited above does not apply.
The RTA applies to the tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Law
Landlords have a legal duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 5 .
Landlords must also provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 6 Discussion
[The tenant/s]’ claim only relates to the condition of the carpet, specifically that the carpet was contaminated with pet urine.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she discussed the smell with Ms Bowey at the beginning of the tenancy. Ms Bowey said that the smell would dissipate over time. The smell did not dissipate. She raised the issue with Ms Bowey, but Ms Bowey was not receptive to her concerns. Her health was affected. She obtained a carpet report from [carpet cleaning company], which confirmed that the carpet was contaminated and needed to be replaced. She consulted her doctor who recommended that she move out as soon as possible.
Ms Bowey submitted that: a. The previous tenant had a dog. b. She accepts that there were some incidents of dog urine on the carpet, but not to the extent that [The tenant/s] alleges. c. [The tenant/s]’ tenancy began immediately after the previous tenancy ended, so she did not have the opportunity to have the carpet professionally cleaned. [The tenant/s] was eager to move in, and her friend offered to do the cleaning, an arrangement which Ms Bowey accepted. d. She was not aware that [The tenant/s] had on-going concerns about the carpet. She understood that [The tenant/s] was using a de-odourising spray on the carpet. 5 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 6 Section 45(1)(b) RTA e. [The tenant/s] came to her in June asking to be released from the tenancy. She was not obliged to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy, but she agreed to it. f. She did not see the [carpet cleaning company] report until August. In the meantime, she had used [carpet cleaning company] to clean the carpet after [The tenant/s] vacated. [Carpet cleaning company] made a comment on their invoice “steam clean and deodorized not much of a dog urine smell but like a wet dog smell and also I think a cat had sprayed in there once”. g. When she received the [carpet cleaning company] report in the application documents, she arranged for a local carpet business to assess the carpet. h. She re-let the premises after [The tenant/s] moved out and the new tenant has not raised any concerns about the carpet.
A smell is a difficult thing to evidence. Sometimes in disputes involving allegations of pet urine damage to carpet there is visual evidence of stains. In this instance there is no visible staining, possibly due to the colour of the carpet.
I am therefore reliant on the reports and opinions provided to me by [The tenant/s] and Ms Bowey.
[The tenant/s] is the applicant in these proceedings. She has the burden of proof. She must prove her claim to the standard of “more likely than not”.
[The tenant/s]’ most powerful piece of evidence is the [carpet cleaning company] report. I accept that the report is independent, and it is from a suitably qualified person. The report is reasonably detailed. It states: Detected most of lounge is affected with a lot of animal urine in carpet using Hydro censor [sic] Folded back carpet in corner and can see urine on the backing but cannot visibly see urine stains on top of carpet. Urine smell very strong and not pleasant it is not good for the health of anyone to be living in the property as the client has respiratory issues
Coincidentally, Ms Bowey also engaged [carpet cleaning company] to clean the carpet after the end of the tenancy. [Carpet cleaning company] invoice to Ms Bowey includes a comment that directly contradicts the report that [carpet cleaning company] provided to [The tenant/s] one month earlier. The invoice states “not much of a dog urine smell”.
In light of this contradiction, Ms Bowey took the sensible step of having another carpet company inspect and assess the carpet.
Ms Bowey engaged [carpet supplier], a carpet retailer and installer based in [town].
[Carpet supplier]’s statement, dated 30 November 2023, states: Today I visited the site in question. The tenants had been away for a few days and the property had been locked up in that time. As a rule when locked up, properties can effuse and any unwanted smells are normally exaggerated. So having Angela brief me on this dispute we walked in to assess any offensive smells. I can safely say that in my view the room might have been slightly stale due to having been locked up but there was certainly no offensive odour caused by pet urine. We uplifted an area of carpet and found no staining.
In summary: a. It is very likely (almost certain) that some dog urine damage occurred during the previous tenancy. b. It is possible, but not proven, that there may also be some ‘cat spray’ on the carpet. c. The staining has caused malodour to some extent, but the evidence provided to me shows a wide range of views about how bad the smell was. [The tenant/s] submitted that it rendered the premises uninhabitable. The [carpet cleaning company] report states that the smell was “very strong and unpleasant”. [Carpet cleaning company] carpet cleaning invoice states that there was “not much of a dog smell”, and [Carpet supplier] described it as “slightly stale” but “certainly no offensive odour caused by dog urine”. Ms Bowey’s new tenant has not expressed any concerns about the smell.
My finding is that it is not proven that the urine damage was so extensive that it necessitated replacement of the carpet. It is not proven that the premises were uninhabitable.
Ms Bowey has not breached her maintenance obligation.
However, I think that Ms Bowey did breach her duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Ms Bowey was aware that there was dog urine on the carpet. It was appropriate to have the carpet professionally cleaned before she re-let the premises. This is not a task that [The tenant/s]’ friend could do.
It is appropriate to award some compensation for this relatively minor breach.
I will award $460.00, which is the equivalent of one weeks’ rent. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee of $20.44.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on request to any party who has been “substantially successful” in the proceedings. In this instance, I have made an award of compensation that is significantly less than the amount that [The tenant/s] claimed. However, I have found that the carpet was urine damaged to some extent, and that Ms Bowey ought to have had the carpet cleaned before the start of [The tenant/s]’ tenancy. I accept that [The tenant/s] found the smell of the carpet to be extremely unpleasant and overwhelming, and that she acted appropriately on medical advice to leave the tenancy. In the circumstances I will grant the request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648490 — Cleanliness at 18B Te Karuwha Parade, Paihia, Paihia 0200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648490 — Cleanliness at 18B Te Karuwha Parade, Paihia, Paihia 0200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions