What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100209 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 5100209?

Cleaning: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,637.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $115.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100209?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596216-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100209 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 5100209?

Cleaning: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,637.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $115.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100209?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596216-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100209 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100209 — net $6,144.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 December 2024	$2,637.14	Rent arrears to 8 December 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$204.70	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$6,000.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Water rates to 8 December 2024	$115.56	Water rates to 8 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,144.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,144.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Megan Barcley and Hilton Rosser Robinson must pay [The landlord/s] $6,144.40 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2024 and was due to end on 9 February 2026, however there was an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early and the tenancy ended on 8 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $2,637.14 for rent and $115.56 for water at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant advised that they stopped paying rent due to issues with waterproofing and water damage at the property. However, the rent had already been reduced by agreement in July and August 2024 to reflect the waterproof membrane leak remedial work. No further rent reductions had been agreed to, and nor has any evidence been provided confirming that rent was not going to be paid due to any ongoing issues.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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.
The landlord claims for damage to the carpet caused by dog faeces and urine. Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports have been provided, together with a routine inspection report (during the tenancy). The landlord claims that during the tenancy there was more than one dog at the property, and dogs were defecating and urinating inside the property. Routine inspection photographs clearly show that faeces had been left on the carpet throughout the property.
The post tenancy report shows evidence of significant staining throughout the property. The landlord tried to have the carpet cleaned. The invoice provided for the carpet cleaning states that there was urine contamination in every room except one, and as a result the contractor recommended that the carpets be replaced throughout. Urine testing was done to stains and is evident in photographs. The landlord claims for the cost of trying to clean the carpet of $204.70.
Based on advice from the contractor, the landlord proceeded to have the carpets replaced throughout the property and claims for the cost of $10,489.09 to do so. The landlord has provided evidence from the insurance company confirming that insurance cover was not available for this damage due to an exclusion for loss caused by animals owned by anyone living in the unit.
In any event, the landlord claims that this damage was intentional due to the tenant continuing to allow their pets to defecate and urinate throughout the property – evident by the sheer numbers of stains, and the routine inspection where the tenant was standing in the unit, with faeces on the floor and not taking any steps to remove or rectify. The landlord advises that the carpet was less than two years old. They also say that there was significant damage to skirting boards likely caused by the dogs that is not being claimed for.
The tenants dispute the amount being claimed and say they are not responsible for new carpet through-out the entire property, as not all rooms had animal staining.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage. I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In my view, it is more likely than not that the damage was caused intentionally by the tenants. It is reasonable to expect that the carpet would likely be damaged through not immediately cleaning the faeces and urination and/or not acting to prevent further animal incidences on the carpet.
I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord to deduct the room that did not need carpet replacement (as identified in the carpet cleaning invoice), and to reflect depreciation and the fact that some wear and tear of the carpet would be likely at the end of a tenancy. The amount awarded is $204.70 for carpet cleaning and $6000.00 for carpet replacement.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 19 March 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100209 — net $6,144.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 December 2024	$2,637.14	Rent arrears to 8 December 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$204.70	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$6,000.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement
Water rates to 8 December 2024	$115.56	Water rates to 8 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,144.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,144.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Megan Barcley and Hilton Rosser Robinson must pay [The landlord/s] $6,144.40 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2024 and was due to end on 9 February 2026, however there was an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early and the tenancy ended on 8 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $2,637.14 for rent and $115.56 for water at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant advised that they stopped paying rent due to issues with waterproofing and water damage at the property. However, the rent had already been reduced by agreement in July and August 2024 to reflect the waterproof membrane leak remedial work. No further rent reductions had been agreed to, and nor has any evidence been provided confirming that rent was not going to be paid due to any ongoing issues.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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.
The landlord claims for damage to the carpet caused by dog faeces and urine. Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection reports have been provided, together with a routine inspection report (during the tenancy). The landlord claims that during the tenancy there was more than one dog at the property, and dogs were defecating and urinating inside the property. Routine inspection photographs clearly show that faeces had been left on the carpet throughout the property.
The post tenancy report shows evidence of significant staining throughout the property. The landlord tried to have the carpet cleaned. The invoice provided for the carpet cleaning states that there was urine contamination in every room except one, and as a result the contractor recommended that the carpets be replaced throughout. Urine testing was done to stains and is evident in photographs. The landlord claims for the cost of trying to clean the carpet of $204.70.
Based on advice from the contractor, the landlord proceeded to have the carpets replaced throughout the property and claims for the cost of $10,489.09 to do so. The landlord has provided evidence from the insurance company confirming that insurance cover was not available for this damage due to an exclusion for loss caused by animals owned by anyone living in the unit.
In any event, the landlord claims that this damage was intentional due to the tenant continuing to allow their pets to defecate and urinate throughout the property – evident by the sheer numbers of stains, and the routine inspection where the tenant was standing in the unit, with faeces on the floor and not taking any steps to remove or rectify. The landlord advises that the carpet was less than two years old. They also say that there was significant damage to skirting boards likely caused by the dogs that is not being claimed for.
The tenants dispute the amount being claimed and say they are not responsible for new carpet through-out the entire property, as not all rooms had animal staining.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage. I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In my view, it is more likely than not that the damage was caused intentionally by the tenants. It is reasonable to expect that the carpet would likely be damaged through not immediately cleaning the faeces and urination and/or not acting to prevent further animal incidences on the carpet.
I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord to deduct the room that did not need carpet replacement (as identified in the carpet cleaning invoice), and to reflect depreciation and the fact that some wear and tear of the carpet would be likely at the end of a tenancy. The amount awarded is $204.70 for carpet cleaning and $6000.00 for carpet replacement.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 19 March 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100209 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100209 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions