What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158571?

The tribunal order states: Ricarda Petzer and Etienne Petzer must pay Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh

How much money was awarded in case 5158571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,487.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11727342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158571?

The tribunal order states: Ricarda Petzer and Etienne Petzer must pay Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh

How much money was awarded in case 5158571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,487.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11727342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158571 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158571 — net $1,114.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,487.50	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,114.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,114.50

Order

Ricarda Petzer and Etienne Petzer must pay Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka and Vicki Marie Maaka $1,114.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (6491216-012) to Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka and Vicki Marie Maaka immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: Ricarda and Etienne Petzer attended as the tenants, and Vicki and Charles Maaka attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing the entire carpet of their rental property, which has been damaged by the tenants’ dog urinating on it. The landlord is seeking refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants are seeking the refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

An outline of the law

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 and pets at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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 damage
The landlord bought the property brand new in January 2020. The carpet was installed at this time, and so was five years old by the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy began on 27 May 2023 and ended on 31 January 2025. It is not disputed that the carpets at the beginning of this tenancy were in excellent condition.
The tenants’ dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement, but there was an intention from both parties that the dog would be kept on the ground floor and wouldn’t go to either the first or the second floor. The tenants accept that this did not eventuate; the dog did go throughout the house, and in doing so urinated on the carpet in every room.
The landlord stated that there were approximately 40 “stains” on the top floor, fewer on the middle floor, and 20 – 30 “stains” on the ground floor. I put quotation marks around the word stains, because they are mostly visible under black-light or ultra-violet light conditions. The landlord produced a video of the carpet under normal light conditions and under black-light which shows the “stains” much more clearly. If anything, the landlord’s videos show that the landlord’s estimate of number of stains may have been conservative.
Carpet cleaning during and after the tenancy was not fully successful in removing the stains. Because of this, I determine that the urine stains amount to damage of the carpet.
The landlord produced a letter from a carpet cleaner which describes the carpet as being in much worse condition than the landlord claimed today. Given I have the landlord’s own version of events today, there is little need for me to give much weight to this untested information, which the tenants disagree strongly with.
I determine the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants claim that because they did their best to contain their dog, their actions were not intentional and were not careless. The tenants produced photographs of the carpet before and after cleaning, and photographs of gates in the house that may have been used in an attempt to contain their dog.
There are simple measures that can be used to effectively contain a dog or a cat in a house, such as closing doors or making a secure area outside. I do not agree with the tenants’ view that they did everything possible to contain their dog. If their dog had urinated, once, twice or even several times on the carpet, I would be prepared to consider this to be carelessness. However, the dog has urinated throughout the whole house, dozens and dozens of times. Because the tenants failed to address the dog’s behaviour when it was at a careless level, I consider the culpability has increased, and the damage is well into the level of being intentional.
The photographs and videos under normal light, produced by both parties show some yellow staining on the medium to dark grey-brown carpet. On the whole though, the carpets still look to be in good condition.
The tenants say that the carpet was cleaned twice, after which there was no noticeable odour of dog urine. They also say that at the inspections towards the end of the tenancy, no issue was raised by the landlord about the smell of urine. Despite the landlord’s letter from the carpet cleaner mentioned above, the landlord did not pursue the issue of an odour of urine.
The carpet is still in the premises, and the premises has been re-tenanted at the same price that these tenants had been paying. There was no mention of any complaint from the new tenants.
In the final analysis I find the damage to the carpet proved and the damage to be intentional. Compensation
The landlord has a quotation to replace the carpet and the carpet underlay at a cost of $9,950.00.
I must take into account 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.
The carpet is now more than five years old. According to the Inland Revenue Department’s document IR265 General Depreciation Rates, a carpet is a chattel that depreciates over an expected life span of 8 years. Because the house was occupied by the owners for the first period of time and the carpet was in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy, I consider it reasonable to extend that period by two years. The carpet is therefore half-way through it’s expected life span and has an approximate value of 50% of its replacement cost.
I also consider that the carpet, although damaged is still usable today, particularly in a rental setting. Whereas the tenants have accelerated the damage to the carpet, the carpet is not yet at the end of its life.
I determine that the tenants are liable for damage that amounts to 50% of the carpet’s residual value, or 25% of its replacement value.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka, Vicki Marie Maaka have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158571 — net $1,114.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,487.50	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,114.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,114.50

Order

Ricarda Petzer and Etienne Petzer must pay Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka and Vicki Marie Maaka $1,114.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (6491216-012) to Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka and Vicki Marie Maaka immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: Ricarda and Etienne Petzer attended as the tenants, and Vicki and Charles Maaka attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing the entire carpet of their rental property, which has been damaged by the tenants’ dog urinating on it. The landlord is seeking refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants are seeking the refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

An outline of the law

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 and pets at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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 damage
The landlord bought the property brand new in January 2020. The carpet was installed at this time, and so was five years old by the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy began on 27 May 2023 and ended on 31 January 2025. It is not disputed that the carpets at the beginning of this tenancy were in excellent condition.
The tenants’ dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement, but there was an intention from both parties that the dog would be kept on the ground floor and wouldn’t go to either the first or the second floor. The tenants accept that this did not eventuate; the dog did go throughout the house, and in doing so urinated on the carpet in every room.
The landlord stated that there were approximately 40 “stains” on the top floor, fewer on the middle floor, and 20 – 30 “stains” on the ground floor. I put quotation marks around the word stains, because they are mostly visible under black-light or ultra-violet light conditions. The landlord produced a video of the carpet under normal light conditions and under black-light which shows the “stains” much more clearly. If anything, the landlord’s videos show that the landlord’s estimate of number of stains may have been conservative.
Carpet cleaning during and after the tenancy was not fully successful in removing the stains. Because of this, I determine that the urine stains amount to damage of the carpet.
The landlord produced a letter from a carpet cleaner which describes the carpet as being in much worse condition than the landlord claimed today. Given I have the landlord’s own version of events today, there is little need for me to give much weight to this untested information, which the tenants disagree strongly with.
I determine the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants claim that because they did their best to contain their dog, their actions were not intentional and were not careless. The tenants produced photographs of the carpet before and after cleaning, and photographs of gates in the house that may have been used in an attempt to contain their dog.
There are simple measures that can be used to effectively contain a dog or a cat in a house, such as closing doors or making a secure area outside. I do not agree with the tenants’ view that they did everything possible to contain their dog. If their dog had urinated, once, twice or even several times on the carpet, I would be prepared to consider this to be carelessness. However, the dog has urinated throughout the whole house, dozens and dozens of times. Because the tenants failed to address the dog’s behaviour when it was at a careless level, I consider the culpability has increased, and the damage is well into the level of being intentional.
The photographs and videos under normal light, produced by both parties show some yellow staining on the medium to dark grey-brown carpet. On the whole though, the carpets still look to be in good condition.
The tenants say that the carpet was cleaned twice, after which there was no noticeable odour of dog urine. They also say that at the inspections towards the end of the tenancy, no issue was raised by the landlord about the smell of urine. Despite the landlord’s letter from the carpet cleaner mentioned above, the landlord did not pursue the issue of an odour of urine.
The carpet is still in the premises, and the premises has been re-tenanted at the same price that these tenants had been paying. There was no mention of any complaint from the new tenants.
In the final analysis I find the damage to the carpet proved and the damage to be intentional. Compensation
The landlord has a quotation to replace the carpet and the carpet underlay at a cost of $9,950.00.
I must take into account 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.
The carpet is now more than five years old. According to the Inland Revenue Department’s document IR265 General Depreciation Rates, a carpet is a chattel that depreciates over an expected life span of 8 years. Because the house was occupied by the owners for the first period of time and the carpet was in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy, I consider it reasonable to extend that period by two years. The carpet is therefore half-way through it’s expected life span and has an approximate value of 50% of its replacement cost.
I also consider that the carpet, although damaged is still usable today, particularly in a rental setting. Whereas the tenants have accelerated the damage to the carpet, the carpet is not yet at the end of its life.
I determine that the tenants are liable for damage that amounts to 50% of the carpet’s residual value, or 25% of its replacement value.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because Charlie Tau Maaka, Ashleigh Marie Maaka, Vicki Marie Maaka have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158571 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158571 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions