What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190171?

The tribunal order states: Rosa Kim and Cole Melhopt are to pay Click Property Management Acting As

How much money was awarded in case 5190171?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $142.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190171?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12081583-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190171?

The tribunal order states: Rosa Kim and Cole Melhopt are to pay Click Property Management Acting As

How much money was awarded in case 5190171?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $142.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190171?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12081583-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

115D London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190171 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190171 — net $642.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$142.86	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: part share	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning: part share
Net award	$642.86
Bond	$1,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$642.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190171 — net $642.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$142.86	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: part share	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning: part share
Net award	$642.86
Bond	$1,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$642.86

Order

Rosa Kim and Cole Melhopt are to pay Click Property Management Acting As Agent For Sharomar Ltd $642.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,380.00 (5279611-021) immediately apportioned as follows: Click Property Management Acting As Agent For Sharomar Ltd: $642.86 Rosa Kim and Cole Melhopt: $737.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference. One tenant joined by telephone after technical issues.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced 17 January 2023. The tenancy agreement was not provided but the landlord confirmed permission had been granted to the tenants to have foster kittens/cats at the premises during the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, an oft-noted issue of cat odour meant the landlord arranged carpet cleaning, including odour treatment. That invoiced amount was sought as compensation.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered. The tenants had previously reviewed the rent summary and confirmed acceptance of the debt to the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenants did not leave the tenancy with the carpet free from cat odour. This is not disputed by the tenants, although the extent and approach to removing the odour, with a resulting cost of $1,200.00, was. The cats
The tenants had foster kittens over the course of the tenancy. This was clearly advised by them prior to the offer of the tenancy, and the tenancy agreement permitted it.
Legacy odours were first noted at the first routine inspection, dated 15 February 2023, some six weeks into the tenancy. Property was reasonably clean and tidy. Tenants have 3 kittens in bedroom 2. Cat odor present, all windows open
The issue was raised by email post-inspection by the agent and the tenants replied that those particular foster kittens would be with them for another week before “going to their new homes”. They noted “all fostering is temporary, and we make sure to keep the property well ventilated to avoid a build up of odors”.
This appears to be the only communication between the two parties regarding such odour although three subsequent routine inspections on 18 October 2023, 21 February 2024, and 16 October 2024 all noted “property was reasonably clean and tidy with no new maintenance to report. Cat odor still present, tenants have windows open ventilating” or word to the same effect.” No owner to agent communication regarding any concerns regarding this now ongoing odour was produced and no landlord notice to the tenants was raised during this period, nor any prompting to the tenants to consider carpet cleaning.

Was there a need to deodorise the carpet?

The tenancy ended with this single issue in dispute.
The tenants left but no carpet cleaning was done by them prior.
Within a week of the tenancy ending, the landlord engaged the Carpet Chemist to attend and report on the carpet. In a later email, dated 11 March 2025, the operator confirmed a significant pet odour when he attended to clean the carpet. He pointed out at that time his original quote made the following points:
The quote of 16 January 2025 did contain such information. It also provided treatment options (as below):
The landlord confirmed the operator is one they have used before. This was the first time they have availed the full guarantee option, being $1,200.00.
I heard this decision was made on the advice of the operator. The tenants were not advised at the time, although the next tenancy was some weeks from commencing. The landlord stated there was some urgency due to the volume of tenancies turning over around that time of the year.
The job was completed but the operator had to return several weeks later (late February) as the new tenants had contacted the landlord, stating:
The tenants attached two photos but they were inconclusive as to the extent or distribution of any residual cat hair or such. Curiously, the photo of the stove element showed considerable hair but how it got there is uncertain – it should have been cleaned before the new tenants regardless. The operator was instructed to return and make a second attempt at resolving the carpet odour. The second attempt was successful.

Should the tenants be liable for the carpet cleaning cost?

Legacy pet odour in residential tenancy carpet is a frequent issue the tribunal is often called upon to adjudicate. It can be problematic as the main offended sense in such situations is smell – an evidential challenge such that submissions from those physically present at the premises usually carries more weight than photos, although variations in submissions of any stated impact is not unusual.
The parties knew and agreed cats would be present during this tenancy. Rent remained as advertised and the tenancy was offered on the merits of the applicants (that is, the proposed feline occupancy was rent cost neutral). The numbers or duration of fostering was not addressed. In no way is any such landlord permission considered an acceptance of, or an automatic obligation on the landlord of any future remediation or repair costs. Equally, it does not automatically make tenants liable for such costs. Each claim must be considered on its own merits.
No mention (verbal or written) was made by the landlord to the tenants regarding the odour, beyond the initial email exchange early in the tenancy, occurred. The impact of such odour is not consistent, and the as operator notes in the quote information it provided the landlord; “You desensitise (no longer smell it) to odour the more you are around it (unlike visitors)”. I consider this the likely case here as the tenants did not believe the odour was a major issue. The inspecting agent’s continued confirmation of a lingering but not increasing odour over the course of the tenancy did not appear to reach any threshold of concern that it was raised with the tenants for addressing. That leads me to conclude that any odour present was not of any extreme, rancid level. Below that is subject to different tolerance and assessment.
So, what motivated the agent to go for the “full service”, inclusive of guarantee? The cost of $1,200 might be balanced against a possible insurance claim with a maximum of three excesses (one per carpeted room) of $500.00 each, or put another way, $1,500 for new carpet to replace the existing carpet of indeterminable age but considered somewhat dated from the photos provided. What a depreciated value may have been was not required to be determined but in that alternative, tenant liability may well have been less than the cost of carpet cleaning cost as claimed.
There is a duty to mitigate a loss. Where one party breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract (see s 49 RTA).
The operator, in offering a guaranteed result, takes on a risk albeit one here after on-site assessment. Such a guarantee may be an option to mitigate loss. A tenant can be liable for the cost of initial carpet cleaning that fails to remedy the problem, with later carpet replacement (and further liability and cost) a possible consequence. In this instance, the operator offers the guarantee after being onsite but there is little evidence of what the root cause of the odour was that a standard deodorising attempt would have failed. The cats seems to have been concentrated in one bedroom, as shown in the cages evident in some photos, but all carpet was treated.
I have also considered the option chosen by the landlord removed all heavy stains as well as odours. Such a result in this instance is a bonus for the landlord. There is no evidence of staining during this tenancy but there was mutual acceptance of pre-tenancy staining of the carpet, such that the landlord offered to absorb $200.00 of the invoiced cost for cleaning in recognition of this.
The guaranteed removal of all odours may have been mutually attractive. Given the lack of urgency (the next tenancy was not imminent) and engaged tenants, I consider the agent should have put this guaranteed result and cost as an option to the tenants. This would have allowed tenant input into such an optional cost, meaning they could make an informed decision of the likely extent and success of any remediation effort and the most appropriate cost verse risk option.
I do not consider the unilateral decision of the agent to accept the guaranteed quote versus the remediation only cost only is proven as justified. While the agent submitted the guarantee meant the operator returned a second time, I consider normal consumer guarantees would have required such attention from someone in trade such as here, engaged to remove pet odours when it was clearly unsuccessful the first time.
The lack of any landlord notice to the tenants regarding any cat odour during the tenancy does not support the exit concerns that the extent of odour at source was so bad that a guaranteed result was required or worth the extra cost incurred.
Having considered all of the above, I consider there is some tenant cost liability. It was open to them to remedy the problem before the tenancy ended. The landlord denied their request for a carpet clean at the beginning of their tenancy and I consider this may have influenced, at least in part, their later lack of action. I have determined they should be liable for the “heavy stain and odour treatment” cost of $700.00. It seems a reasonable expectation that a suitably qualified operator would have some positive impact on the source of odour for such a cost. I have deducted $200.00 from that amount to recognise the consequential landlord benefit of concurrent stain removal from this exercise. That sets the tenant liability at $500.00. That equates to under $5 per week for the felines joining this two-year tenancy.
The “guarantee” component of the invoice here is not accepted as a tenant liability. It is not proven by the landlord as a reasonable mitigation of cost strategy and the tenants should have had some prior opportunity for input to such a decision, being aware of the potential benefit and risks for them before any commitment.
The guaranteed approach to carpet cleaning results may have application in some circumstances but there is a concern that it is used appropriately and does not become an equivalent of an inflated “extended warranty” type of offering when the contractor is already providing a professional service after an inspection. In this instance the service was for an “intensive stain and odour treatment option for heavy stains and odour” at a cost of $700.00. Such contractor performance is subject to normal consumer protections. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered. Filing fee
The tenants raised some reasonable arguments reflected in the reduced compensation ordered. They had already accepted the last rent arrears as claimed and were willing to accept some cost of carpet cleaning. I consider this matter could have been resolved before the hearing. I therefore decline any order regarding the landlord application filing fee. That cost stays with the landlord. Summary
This appears a good tenancy with no other issues. Landlord concerns regarding the odour were not raised during the tenancy and any odour was not getting worse. Equally, the tenants took no adequate steps to address any underlying source of odour during or at the end. Window venting before and during inspections would have possibly reduced odour to minimise the extent, although it was still noted and reported by the landlord. I do not consider it realistic the tenants were not aware of the odour, although I accept they may have considered it to be a lesser problem than others on entry (agents, operator, new tenants) may have.
In this instance, for the landlord to unilaterally order and then seek recovery from the tenant of the extra cost for a guaranteed result, above the cost of actual treatment, without tenant input, is not reasonable and that cost is not passed on to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190171 — Cleanliness at 115D London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190171 — Cleanliness at 115D London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Was there a need to deodorise the carpet?

Should the tenants be liable for the carpet cleaning cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Was there a need to deodorise the carpet?

Should the tenants be liable for the carpet cleaning cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions