What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067309 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 5067309?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $77.62 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $490.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067309?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11590430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067309 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 5067309?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $77.62 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $490.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067309?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11590430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067309 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067309 — net $1,334.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$77.62	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$190.00	Carpet cleaning
Additional carpet cleaning	$550.00	Additional carpet cleaning
Painting	$490.36	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,334.98
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,334.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,334.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,334.98 [The tenant/s]: $985.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 9 June 2023 and ended on 31 October 2024.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 5067309. The landlord has filed a cross application (application 5079370) seeking payment from the bond and compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and painting. The total claim is $1,307.98.
After some discussion, the parties agreed that the landlord was to receive compensation for the painting and general cleaning costs. The tenant also agreed that the landlord was to be compensated for one of the carpet cleaning costs, being the initial invoice for $190.00. However, the tenant does not accept liability for the second carpet cleaning invoice of $550.00. This claim is considered below. Carpet
The landlord claims additional carpet cleaning costs of $550.00 to remove odours in the carpet, believed to be caused by dog urine.
The landlord states that on completion of the final inspection, and at a subsequent visit to the premises, there was a strong dog/urine odour. The landlord was aware the tenant kept a puppy on the premises, which was not permitted under the tenancy agreement. The new tenants arranged for cleaning, but the smell was still present. Upon investigation, it was found there were urine stains on the carpet. The ultraviolet light showed there were urine stains in the bedrooms, dining room and lounge. Photographic evidence was provided. The new tenants do not have pets. Prior to the tenant moving in, the premises was owner occupied and they did not have pets. The latest carpet cleaning had removed 90% of the pet odour. The carpet was 5-7 years old.
The tenant states she kept a puppy at the premises for three days and was looking after it for her brother. The puppy was confined to the kitchen area, and she did not let it roam around. The tenant states it was not possible for the puppy to have gone onto the carpet. There was a door into the hallway, and she had a playpen set up. She accepts that she did not have the landlord’s permission to keep a dog on the premises, but notes another person working for the landlord had indicated to her son that it was okay.
In terms of the likely cause of the odour, the tenant states the house was locked up, for three days, over the long weekend. The final inspection was carried out just after this period. So, the property would have needed some airing. She questions whether the stains were there before she moved in. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
Where compensation for damage is being claimed, 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the additional carpet cleaning costs?

In this case, I acknowledge the tenant’s evidence of the measures she took to prevent the puppy going onto the carpet. I also note her submissions regarding the likely cause of the carpet odour. Taking into account the whole of the evidence and the submissions of both parties, I find the landlord has established that the need for additional carpet cleaning was because of the presence of dog urine on the carpet.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence showing the staining of the carpet under ultraviolet light. The invoice from [carpet cleaners], dated 30 October 2024, notes there was a “strong urine smell in (the) lounge and dining carpet and what looks to be urine marks on the backing of the lounge mat.” It is accepted that the tenant kept a puppy on the premises for three days, although this was not permitted under her tenancy agreement, and the landlord had not given her express permission to do so. It is probable that, despite the tenant’s best efforts, the puppy has urinated on the carpet, causing the odour.
Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the additional carpet cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. This is awarded above. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067309 — net $1,334.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$77.62	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$190.00	Carpet cleaning
Additional carpet cleaning	$550.00	Additional carpet cleaning
Painting	$490.36	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,334.98
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,334.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,334.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,334.98 [The tenant/s]: $985.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 9 June 2023 and ended on 31 October 2024.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 5067309. The landlord has filed a cross application (application 5079370) seeking payment from the bond and compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and painting. The total claim is $1,307.98.
After some discussion, the parties agreed that the landlord was to receive compensation for the painting and general cleaning costs. The tenant also agreed that the landlord was to be compensated for one of the carpet cleaning costs, being the initial invoice for $190.00. However, the tenant does not accept liability for the second carpet cleaning invoice of $550.00. This claim is considered below. Carpet
The landlord claims additional carpet cleaning costs of $550.00 to remove odours in the carpet, believed to be caused by dog urine.
The landlord states that on completion of the final inspection, and at a subsequent visit to the premises, there was a strong dog/urine odour. The landlord was aware the tenant kept a puppy on the premises, which was not permitted under the tenancy agreement. The new tenants arranged for cleaning, but the smell was still present. Upon investigation, it was found there were urine stains on the carpet. The ultraviolet light showed there were urine stains in the bedrooms, dining room and lounge. Photographic evidence was provided. The new tenants do not have pets. Prior to the tenant moving in, the premises was owner occupied and they did not have pets. The latest carpet cleaning had removed 90% of the pet odour. The carpet was 5-7 years old.
The tenant states she kept a puppy at the premises for three days and was looking after it for her brother. The puppy was confined to the kitchen area, and she did not let it roam around. The tenant states it was not possible for the puppy to have gone onto the carpet. There was a door into the hallway, and she had a playpen set up. She accepts that she did not have the landlord’s permission to keep a dog on the premises, but notes another person working for the landlord had indicated to her son that it was okay.
In terms of the likely cause of the odour, the tenant states the house was locked up, for three days, over the long weekend. The final inspection was carried out just after this period. So, the property would have needed some airing. She questions whether the stains were there before she moved in. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
Where compensation for damage is being claimed, 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the additional carpet cleaning costs?

In this case, I acknowledge the tenant’s evidence of the measures she took to prevent the puppy going onto the carpet. I also note her submissions regarding the likely cause of the carpet odour. Taking into account the whole of the evidence and the submissions of both parties, I find the landlord has established that the need for additional carpet cleaning was because of the presence of dog urine on the carpet.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence showing the staining of the carpet under ultraviolet light. The invoice from [carpet cleaners], dated 30 October 2024, notes there was a “strong urine smell in (the) lounge and dining carpet and what looks to be urine marks on the backing of the lounge mat.” It is accepted that the tenant kept a puppy on the premises for three days, although this was not permitted under her tenancy agreement, and the landlord had not given her express permission to do so. It is probable that, despite the tenant’s best efforts, the puppy has urinated on the carpet, causing the odour.
Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the additional carpet cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. This is awarded above. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067309 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067309 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the additional carpet cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the additional carpet cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions