What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191572 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 5191572?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191572?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755564-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191572 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 5191572?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191572?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755564-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 15 Regent Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191572 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191572. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,100.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,307.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 2020 Property Management And Advisory Services Limited As Agent For Alfred And Amai Kumar immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $493.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing. The landlords did not appear but Ms Rao their agent attended.
The tenancy began on the 3 April 2024. Mr Kumar, one of the owners of the property is [redacted]. Throughout the tenancy the property was managed by Ms Rao for 2020 Property Management Limited.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant is permitted to keep two dogs at the property. The dogs are required to be kept outdoors.
During the tenancy Mr and Mrs Kumar visited the property in their capacity as friends of the tenant’s, not as landlords. The parties had meals and meetings at the premises.
The tenancy has now ended the landlord is claiming: a. Rent until the 28 January 2025. b. The cost of carpet replacement of $3200.00 c. The cost of carpet cleaning of $207.00 d. The filing fee.
The tenant accepts liability for the carpet cleaning. The tenant disputes all the landlord’s other claims.

When did the tenancy end?

The tenant says that during the tenancy his having four dogs at the property became contentious. The tenant says he only signed the tenancy agreement with two dogs (outside) because whilst the landlord knew he had four dogs, the landlord said that his wife and Ms Rao would not allow the tenant to have the property if the tenant said that he had four dogs. The tenant says that he did not hide the four dogs, and this is substantiated by Ms Rao’s evidence that when she conducted an inspection, she saw four dogs at the property, and the landlord’s evidence that when they went to the home there were four dogs present.
On the 17 December the tenant wrote to Ms Rao confirming that he had four dogs, and that to date the dogs had not done any damage to the house and that if they did the tenant accepted liability for any damage caused.
The tenant says that on the 3 January 2025 the landlord called him and told him he would need to dispose of two dogs or find somewhere else to live.
The tenant looked for another property and found one that was suitable for him to move to with his dogs on the 5 January 2025. The tenant says that finding pet friendly properties can be difficult, so he felt he was lucky to have found one so quickly. The tenant immediately told both the agent and the owner that he had found a new home. He said he would be moving on the 18 January and would return the keys on the 19 January 2025 after he had cleaned the property.
On the 6 January the owner replied to the tenant’s text saying “Congratulations on getting a house. Hope you will understand us with respect to our decision.” (sic)
The agent told the tenant that he needed to give 28 days’ notice which meant that his tenancy would not end until 1 February 2025 (the agent now seeks rent until the 28 January 2025).
The tenant submits he should not be liable for rent until the 28 January 2025 as he moved out at the landlord’s request.
A tenant must usually give 28 days’ notice to end a tenancy. However, if the parties agree this can be shorter notice period.
I have considered all the evidence and I consider that the tenant should only be liable for rent until the 19 January 2025 for the following reasons: a. Section 50(1)(d) RTA allows termination where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. The tenant informed the landlord on the 5 January that he had found another house and would be moving out on the 18 January and handing back the keys on the 19 January. Whilst the landlord’s agent disputed these dates in an email of the 5 January, I consider that the owner of the property accepted the tenant’s email by his text in writing of the 6 January where he congratulated the tenant on the obtaining a new house and acknowledged that the tenant was leaving due to the landlord’s request. b. It would be unfair for a landlord to ask the tenant to leave, when the landlord was unable to do so under the provisions of the RTA at that time but expect strict compliance by the tenant for notice periods.
The landlord provided a rent ledger showing the rent paid for the tenancy. I accept that the tenant is liable for rent until the 19 January 2025 being $2100.00 in arrears and award that amount.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement?

The landlord says that the carpet needed replacing at the end of the tenancy because it smelt bad as a result of the tenant’s dogs urinating on the carpet.
The tenant accepts that there was a smell but says that the landlord told him in a text message of 6 February 2025 that he would be able to get it out. The tenant disputes that the carpet needed replacing.
The tenant accepts that liability for the cost of carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for any damage caused by them during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant took pictures of the property at the end of the tenancy. Those photographs do not show any damage, such as extensive staining to the carpet.
Ms Rao says that when she inspected the property on the 28 January that there was an odour in the house. She noted this in her inspection report. She says it smelt bad and was off putting for potential tenants. The owner of the property has previously owned a carpet cleaning business and Ms Rao says his text of the 6 February would have been because he was certain he could get the smell out. She says despite cleaning, the odour could not be removed. The carpet was replaced on the 13 February, the carpet layers noted in their invoice that the carpet smelt bad and so did the underlay.
The tenant says that his dogs are well trained and that he always left the door open during the day if he went out (this is corroborated by the neighbours who were annoyed that the dogs would bark in the back yard). He says that there would have been up to 4 times in 9 months that his dogs urinated on the carpet, he said that if his dogs urinate it would be cleaned up immediately and thoroughly. He said that the dogs urinated only at the beginning of the tenancy, when they were new to the house and that he had the carpets shampooed after that date.
The tenant says that the landlords and others came to the property and saw the dogs. No-one ever complained of the smell. The tenant accepts that at the routine inspection Ms Rao mentioned an odour. The tenant also does not dispute that there was a smell at the end of the tenancy but says that this should have come out by cleaning.
I record that as the tenancy agreement only permits 2 outside dogs that the landlord has not assumed any wear and tear to the carpets from the dogs.
I accept that there was a smell in the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
Having carefully considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the carpet needed to be replaced because of the smell. a. Whilst I accept that the tenant’s dogs have urinated on the carpet, I do not accept on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the smell was unable to be removed from the carpet to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. b. The landlord told the tenant that he expected the smell to be removed. There was no evidence on what the smell was like after cleaning the property. In the landlord’s evidence of the 23 April, he makes no mention of the smell of the carpets after cleaning. c. The typed notes on the bottom of the invoice which said that the carpet was smelly, was not signed and the person who wrote those notes did not give evidence. I was therefore unable to test the evidence.
The landlord’s claim for the cost of the carpet replacement is dismissed. Filling fee
As both parties have proven some claims proven and had other claims dismissed each party will bear their own costs of the filing fee. Name suppression
As the tenant has been successful in defending the claim regarding carpet replacement and the claim that his tenancy ended on the 19 January, I grant the tenant name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191572. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,100.00		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,307.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 2020 Property Management And Advisory Services Limited As Agent For Alfred And Amai Kumar immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $493.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing. The landlords did not appear but Ms Rao their agent attended.
The tenancy began on the 3 April 2024. Mr Kumar, one of the owners of the property is [redacted]. Throughout the tenancy the property was managed by Ms Rao for 2020 Property Management Limited.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant is permitted to keep two dogs at the property. The dogs are required to be kept outdoors.
During the tenancy Mr and Mrs Kumar visited the property in their capacity as friends of the tenant’s, not as landlords. The parties had meals and meetings at the premises.
The tenancy has now ended the landlord is claiming: a. Rent until the 28 January 2025. b. The cost of carpet replacement of $3200.00 c. The cost of carpet cleaning of $207.00 d. The filing fee.
The tenant accepts liability for the carpet cleaning. The tenant disputes all the landlord’s other claims.

When did the tenancy end?

The tenant says that during the tenancy his having four dogs at the property became contentious. The tenant says he only signed the tenancy agreement with two dogs (outside) because whilst the landlord knew he had four dogs, the landlord said that his wife and Ms Rao would not allow the tenant to have the property if the tenant said that he had four dogs. The tenant says that he did not hide the four dogs, and this is substantiated by Ms Rao’s evidence that when she conducted an inspection, she saw four dogs at the property, and the landlord’s evidence that when they went to the home there were four dogs present.
On the 17 December the tenant wrote to Ms Rao confirming that he had four dogs, and that to date the dogs had not done any damage to the house and that if they did the tenant accepted liability for any damage caused.
The tenant says that on the 3 January 2025 the landlord called him and told him he would need to dispose of two dogs or find somewhere else to live.
The tenant looked for another property and found one that was suitable for him to move to with his dogs on the 5 January 2025. The tenant says that finding pet friendly properties can be difficult, so he felt he was lucky to have found one so quickly. The tenant immediately told both the agent and the owner that he had found a new home. He said he would be moving on the 18 January and would return the keys on the 19 January 2025 after he had cleaned the property.
On the 6 January the owner replied to the tenant’s text saying “Congratulations on getting a house. Hope you will understand us with respect to our decision.” (sic)
The agent told the tenant that he needed to give 28 days’ notice which meant that his tenancy would not end until 1 February 2025 (the agent now seeks rent until the 28 January 2025).
The tenant submits he should not be liable for rent until the 28 January 2025 as he moved out at the landlord’s request.
A tenant must usually give 28 days’ notice to end a tenancy. However, if the parties agree this can be shorter notice period.
I have considered all the evidence and I consider that the tenant should only be liable for rent until the 19 January 2025 for the following reasons: a. Section 50(1)(d) RTA allows termination where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. The tenant informed the landlord on the 5 January that he had found another house and would be moving out on the 18 January and handing back the keys on the 19 January. Whilst the landlord’s agent disputed these dates in an email of the 5 January, I consider that the owner of the property accepted the tenant’s email by his text in writing of the 6 January where he congratulated the tenant on the obtaining a new house and acknowledged that the tenant was leaving due to the landlord’s request. b. It would be unfair for a landlord to ask the tenant to leave, when the landlord was unable to do so under the provisions of the RTA at that time but expect strict compliance by the tenant for notice periods.
The landlord provided a rent ledger showing the rent paid for the tenancy. I accept that the tenant is liable for rent until the 19 January 2025 being $2100.00 in arrears and award that amount.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement?

The landlord says that the carpet needed replacing at the end of the tenancy because it smelt bad as a result of the tenant’s dogs urinating on the carpet.
The tenant accepts that there was a smell but says that the landlord told him in a text message of 6 February 2025 that he would be able to get it out. The tenant disputes that the carpet needed replacing.
The tenant accepts that liability for the cost of carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for any damage caused by them during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant took pictures of the property at the end of the tenancy. Those photographs do not show any damage, such as extensive staining to the carpet.
Ms Rao says that when she inspected the property on the 28 January that there was an odour in the house. She noted this in her inspection report. She says it smelt bad and was off putting for potential tenants. The owner of the property has previously owned a carpet cleaning business and Ms Rao says his text of the 6 February would have been because he was certain he could get the smell out. She says despite cleaning, the odour could not be removed. The carpet was replaced on the 13 February, the carpet layers noted in their invoice that the carpet smelt bad and so did the underlay.
The tenant says that his dogs are well trained and that he always left the door open during the day if he went out (this is corroborated by the neighbours who were annoyed that the dogs would bark in the back yard). He says that there would have been up to 4 times in 9 months that his dogs urinated on the carpet, he said that if his dogs urinate it would be cleaned up immediately and thoroughly. He said that the dogs urinated only at the beginning of the tenancy, when they were new to the house and that he had the carpets shampooed after that date.
The tenant says that the landlords and others came to the property and saw the dogs. No-one ever complained of the smell. The tenant accepts that at the routine inspection Ms Rao mentioned an odour. The tenant also does not dispute that there was a smell at the end of the tenancy but says that this should have come out by cleaning.
I record that as the tenancy agreement only permits 2 outside dogs that the landlord has not assumed any wear and tear to the carpets from the dogs.
I accept that there was a smell in the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
Having carefully considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the carpet needed to be replaced because of the smell. a. Whilst I accept that the tenant’s dogs have urinated on the carpet, I do not accept on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the smell was unable to be removed from the carpet to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. b. The landlord told the tenant that he expected the smell to be removed. There was no evidence on what the smell was like after cleaning the property. In the landlord’s evidence of the 23 April, he makes no mention of the smell of the carpets after cleaning. c. The typed notes on the bottom of the invoice which said that the carpet was smelly, was not signed and the person who wrote those notes did not give evidence. I was therefore unable to test the evidence.
The landlord’s claim for the cost of the carpet replacement is dismissed. Filling fee
As both parties have proven some claims proven and had other claims dismissed each party will bear their own costs of the filing fee. Name suppression
As the tenant has been successful in defending the claim regarding carpet replacement and the claim that his tenancy ended on the 19 January, I grant the tenant name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191572 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 15 Regent Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191572 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 15 Regent Street, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions