What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137248 about?

The tribunal order states: Lina Jahre Carlsen to pay [The respondent/s] $602.50 from the bond ([Bond

How much money was awarded in case 5137248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11707726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137248 about?

The tribunal order states: Lina Jahre Carlsen to pay [The respondent/s] $602.50 from the bond ([Bond

How much money was awarded in case 5137248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11707726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5137248 — Cleanliness

Order

Lina Jahre Carlsen to pay [The respondent/s] $602.50 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) in compensation for carpet damage.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $602.50 Lina Jahre Carlsen: $897.50
An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord company was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s], the two directors.
This tenancy ended January 2025 after approximately four years. The landlord now seeks compensation for having to replace the carpets due to smell. Ms Carlsen disputes the claim and wants her bond returned to her.
The background is that during the tenancy Ms Carlsen wished to get a dog. The landlord approved this on the basis that she professionally clean the carpets when she vacated and provided that the dog did not cause noise disturbance. Both of these conditions were met, and the carpets were cleaned twice at Ms Carlsen’s expense.
However, [The landlord/s]’s view is that the carpets still smelt like dog when they regained possession of the property. They therefore had the carpets replaced as they were advised the property could not be re-let with them in that condition. The total cost was $6,025 and they seek reimbursement of half of that from Ms Carlsen.
The questions for the Tribunal therefore are: i. Was the carpet damaged during Ms Carlsen’s tenure? ii. If so, was it careless or intentional damage or fair wear and tear? Landlord’s evidence
[The landlord/s]’s evidence is that the house smelt so strongly of dog when it was returned to them that they left all windows and doors open for 10 days in an effort to air it. They say the living area, hall and bedroom were the most acute smelling, particularly the bedroom. The smell was a mixture of dog and urine. The flatmate’s bedroom did not smell.
They did not want to replace the carpet as it was in good condition however the feedback they received indicated to them that they had to. In particular they had two sets of prospective tenants who declined the property because of the smell. They eventually managed to relet the property on the condition the carpets would be replaced before the new tenants moved in. [The landlord/s] provided a text from the current tenants agreeing that there was a dog smell when they first viewed the property and saying: “It was quite heavily affected with dog. I’m surprised the clean didn’t get rid of it”.
[The landlord/s] submitted a text message from a real estate agent who had appraised the property (after both cleans) saying there was a “doggy smell coming from the carpet”. She recommended replacement if the property was going to be sold or re-tenanted, saying “no tenant or buyer would have been happy with that smell. It would have put them off.”
[The landlord/s] also provided a text message from his carpet layer saying he lifted the carpets, scraped the floors and had ChemDry apply odour neutraliser as the smell had not completely dissipated after the carpet had been removed.
They accept that the carpets were approximately 10 years old however say they were in good condition and previous tenants had not had pets. Their view is that Ms Carlsen should contribute to the replacement cost. Tenant’s evidence
Ms Carlsen provided the following comprehensive evidence in support of her contention that the carpets did not need replacing: a. A letter from her carpet cleaners ([redacted]) saying they undertook a pet cleaning service on 9 January. This included a pre-spray of all the areas with a pet odour neutralizer then a deep hot water extraction and deodorisation cleaning of the carpets. They were asked to go back which they did, and said they could not smell any pet odour. They re-did the clean. They said there were no visible signs of pet urine and considered any smell would be because the house had been shut up. b. Several letters from flatmates saying the home was always kept clean and they never observed the dog to urinate inside. They also said they never noticed any overpowering or dominant smell of dog. One said the carpet was “of the cheap, thin, poorly installed variety...tired looking and needed replacement.” 1 c. Several letters from friends who had visited the property saying they could at times smell dog but never dog urine and never saw the dog urinate inside and know him to be housetrained. d. Character references attesting to her honesty and integrity. e. Evidence she attended and completed a dog psychology, behaviour and training course.
Ms Carlsen says there were four inspections after the dog had moved in and no concerns about smells were raised. She did not have any difficulties obtaining flatmates and none ever complained to her about the smell.
She accepts there was a smell of dog during the tenancy but says she could not smell anything after she had vacated, and the carpets had been cleaned. She 1 [Name redacted] is clear that she never saw nor smelt her dog urinate inside and that he is housetrained.
Her view is that given the landlord managed to replace the carpet and obtain new tenants within a matter of weeks of her tenancy ending, they were highly motivated to do so rather than driven by necessity. The law and discussion
Pursuant to section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) at the end of the tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and without damage. The landlord’s contention here is essentially that the carpets were so dirty they were damaged.
To be successful in such a claim, 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance as here, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent, see section 49B(3)(b) RTA. The weekly rent here was $775.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B(1) RTA. Damage is 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.
There is a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. The role of the Tribunal is to assess the evidence and determine whether allegations are established to the requisite standard, the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In other words, determine, based on the evidence, what is more likely than not.
Having considered the evidence very carefully, I find it more likely than not that there was a pervasive smell post tenancy. It is agreed there was no smell prior to the tenancy and Ms Carlsen had a dog in the property for the final almost two years of the tenancy.
In coming to this finding I have placed weight on the independent real estate agent’s advice as well as that of the current tenants. I accept the carpet cleaners say they could not smell anything however the letter was not written by the actual technician who attended the property and the writer referred to a closed-up house, which this house was not.
The pertinent time for the smell was after the tenancy had ended and most particularly after both cleans had occurred. The most direct evidence of this time was from [The landlord/s], the real estate agent and the prospective tenants.
There is no dispute that in all other regards Ms Carlsen was an exemplary tenant and the landlords were responsive and took their obligations seriously. Why a smell continued is unclear, but I accept on the evidence that it did.
Ms Carlsen argues that as the landlord agreed to the dog in the tenancy, any lasting smell would essentially be fair wear and tear. I would agree with this provided the smell dissipated upon airing. A smell that permeated post airing and cleaning would however be considered damage.
Accordingly, I find that the carpets were damaged by smell in excess of fair wear and tear that occurred during this tenancy. Accordingly, Ms Carlsen has some liability for the costs of remedy.
In considering compensation, I must consider depreciation which is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Fair wear and tear is ‘compensated’ for in the rent a tenant pays.
Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
The carpets were approximately 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life span of carpets in New Zealand residential tenancies is approximately 10 years. Therefore, these carpets had most likely reached the end of their expected lifespan. I do however accept that they were in otherwise good condition as can be seen by Ms Carlsen’s videos and should have had a few more years wear in them.
I also note that the second bedroom was carpeted although it did not smell. This was to ensure consistency of the carpeting but was not strictly required because of the damage.
Accordingly, I consider an award of 10% of the replacement cost just in the circumstances. Filing fee
As both parties were put to the cost of bringing their claims it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. Both parties have sought suppression orders. As the landlords were successful in their claim, I approve their application for suppression, but I must decline Ms Carlsen’s.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137248 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137248 — 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