What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187253 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 5187253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187253?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12002701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187253 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 5187253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187253?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12002701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Broadway Street, Martinborough, Martinborough 5711 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187253 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a long term tenancy of over 5 years. The landlord confirmed that the property was kept in excellent condition over the tenancy by the tenant. The tenant said she is a very fussy housekeeper and has a high standard of cleanliness in her home.
Throughout the tenancy there were never any complaints or concerns about the condition or cleanliness of the property. The tenancy ended on 17 February 2025 when the tenant moved after purchasing her own home.
The tenant cleaned the property thoroughly and had the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The first the tenant knew of a problem at the property was when she received an email from the property manager on 21 February 2025 stating that the carpets were very smelly and there were urine smells and stains on the carpet. At this stage, the landlord had the carpet ripped up as Chemwash had said that the smell could not be remedied, and the only solution was to replace the carpets.
The tenant was upset that she was not notified of the complaint and had not been involvement until the carpet had been removed.
After hearing about the urine smells the tenant contacted professional carpet cleaners who advised that urine smells and stains could have been in the carpet for a long time. It is only when hot water and chemicals used to wash carpet are applied, that the smell come out of the carpet. The tenant says this is clearly what has happened. She had the carpets cleaned and that has revealed the latent smells and stains in the carpet.
The tenant has never had any pets and says there have not been any animals in her house to her knowledge. The tenant says she never experienced any urine smells during her tenancy.
The landlord says that it is well known that the tenant is involved with cat rescuing and there are stray cats that she feeds at the property. The landlord claims that a neighbour of the tenant said that they saw the tenant with stray cats in and around her property.
The tenant is adamant that she has not allowed stray cats to come into her home.
It would appear the neighbour is unknown to the tenant and lived across the road from her. I am putting aside that letter from the neighbour and it does not form any part of my findings. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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 say that the tenant has allowed stray cats to enter into the property and urinate in the two bedrooms on the carpet, thereby causing damage.
The landlord relies on the photos of the underside of the carpets showing stain marks, the Chemwash report and the neighbour’s statement.
The stains were not evident until the carpet had been lifted by Chemwash. The tenant therefore would not know of the stains just by looking at the carpet. Both parties agree that smells can be dormant until hot water and chemicals are applied to the carpet when cleaning it.
The landlord says that the tenant has been at the property for 5 years and it is unlikely that stains and smells could remain dormant for that long and only create a problem when cleaned all these years later.
Chemwash is the expert and there is nothing provided to suggest how long the stains were likely to have been in the carpet, and if the stains were over 5 years old, they would or would not, smell after a hot wash.
The landlord applied to their insurance company for the cost of replacing the carpet in the two bedrooms. The carpets in the two bedrooms cost $2676.00 to replace. The insurance company accepted the claim. The landlord had to pay $1000 for the insurance excess, which they seek to claim back from the tenant.
The insurance company only paid $728.48 out after deducting depreciation costs. The carpet was not new when the tenancy began on 11 March 2019. That means the carpets are at the very least 6 years old.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In the order above, it sets out the landlords claim and the support they offer as evidence of their claim. The tenant refutes the landlord claim and supporting evidence.
The photos prove that there were stains on the back of the carpet. There is no proof that they were they before the tenancy start or occurred during this tenancy.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the carpet has happened during this tenancy. I make this assessment because there was no evidence about the length of time stains and smells could lay dormant in carpet and still cause problems once subjected to hot washing and chemical interaction. Therefore, it is possible that this has happened, and the urine was not a recent event or occurred over the last 5 years.
If that is the case, then the tenant is not responsible for the damage.
The tenant did not have pets and is adamant that she has never allowed a stray cat to enter into her house when she has left the back door open. If a stray cat did enter into the property, is it unlikely to have managed to urinate all over the carpets in two bedrooms as is seen on the back of the carpet.
I am simply not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim given the issues I have found and the lack of evidence to assist me with those issues. I accept it is difficult for a landlord in these circumstances to prove their claim to the required standard.
I am granting the tenant suppression of her name and identifying details as I have not found that the landlord has proven their claim.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a long term tenancy of over 5 years. The landlord confirmed that the property was kept in excellent condition over the tenancy by the tenant. The tenant said she is a very fussy housekeeper and has a high standard of cleanliness in her home.
Throughout the tenancy there were never any complaints or concerns about the condition or cleanliness of the property. The tenancy ended on 17 February 2025 when the tenant moved after purchasing her own home.
The tenant cleaned the property thoroughly and had the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The first the tenant knew of a problem at the property was when she received an email from the property manager on 21 February 2025 stating that the carpets were very smelly and there were urine smells and stains on the carpet. At this stage, the landlord had the carpet ripped up as Chemwash had said that the smell could not be remedied, and the only solution was to replace the carpets.
The tenant was upset that she was not notified of the complaint and had not been involvement until the carpet had been removed.
After hearing about the urine smells the tenant contacted professional carpet cleaners who advised that urine smells and stains could have been in the carpet for a long time. It is only when hot water and chemicals used to wash carpet are applied, that the smell come out of the carpet. The tenant says this is clearly what has happened. She had the carpets cleaned and that has revealed the latent smells and stains in the carpet.
The tenant has never had any pets and says there have not been any animals in her house to her knowledge. The tenant says she never experienced any urine smells during her tenancy.
The landlord says that it is well known that the tenant is involved with cat rescuing and there are stray cats that she feeds at the property. The landlord claims that a neighbour of the tenant said that they saw the tenant with stray cats in and around her property.
The tenant is adamant that she has not allowed stray cats to come into her home.
It would appear the neighbour is unknown to the tenant and lived across the road from her. I am putting aside that letter from the neighbour and it does not form any part of my findings. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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 say that the tenant has allowed stray cats to enter into the property and urinate in the two bedrooms on the carpet, thereby causing damage.
The landlord relies on the photos of the underside of the carpets showing stain marks, the Chemwash report and the neighbour’s statement.
The stains were not evident until the carpet had been lifted by Chemwash. The tenant therefore would not know of the stains just by looking at the carpet. Both parties agree that smells can be dormant until hot water and chemicals are applied to the carpet when cleaning it.
The landlord says that the tenant has been at the property for 5 years and it is unlikely that stains and smells could remain dormant for that long and only create a problem when cleaned all these years later.
Chemwash is the expert and there is nothing provided to suggest how long the stains were likely to have been in the carpet, and if the stains were over 5 years old, they would or would not, smell after a hot wash.
The landlord applied to their insurance company for the cost of replacing the carpet in the two bedrooms. The carpets in the two bedrooms cost $2676.00 to replace. The insurance company accepted the claim. The landlord had to pay $1000 for the insurance excess, which they seek to claim back from the tenant.
The insurance company only paid $728.48 out after deducting depreciation costs. The carpet was not new when the tenancy began on 11 March 2019. That means the carpets are at the very least 6 years old.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In the order above, it sets out the landlords claim and the support they offer as evidence of their claim. The tenant refutes the landlord claim and supporting evidence.
The photos prove that there were stains on the back of the carpet. There is no proof that they were they before the tenancy start or occurred during this tenancy.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the carpet has happened during this tenancy. I make this assessment because there was no evidence about the length of time stains and smells could lay dormant in carpet and still cause problems once subjected to hot washing and chemical interaction. Therefore, it is possible that this has happened, and the urine was not a recent event or occurred over the last 5 years.
If that is the case, then the tenant is not responsible for the damage.
The tenant did not have pets and is adamant that she has never allowed a stray cat to enter into her house when she has left the back door open. If a stray cat did enter into the property, is it unlikely to have managed to urinate all over the carpets in two bedrooms as is seen on the back of the carpet.
I am simply not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim given the issues I have found and the lack of evidence to assist me with those issues. I accept it is difficult for a landlord in these circumstances to prove their claim to the required standard.
I am granting the tenant suppression of her name and identifying details as I have not found that the landlord has proven their claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187253 — Cleanliness at 26 Broadway Street, Martinborough, Martinborough 5711

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187253 — Cleanliness at 26 Broadway Street, Martinborough, Martinborough 5711

At a glance

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

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