What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216031 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5216031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12344577-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216031 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5216031?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12344577-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 72 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216031 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216031 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet insurance excess	$2,400.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216031 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet insurance excess	$2,400.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (3201761-026) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.
The Tenants 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. The Landlord provided a substantial amount of evidence to consider.
The Tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
The tenancy began on 30 July 2022 and ended on 24 January 2025. In May 2023, with the Landlords consent, the Tenant had a cat at the property.

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, that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet damage.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant damaged the carpet in the lounge area by causing stains. They claimed insurance excess of $4000.00 to replace the carpet because they were unable to remove the stains.
The Landlord discovered the damage at the end of the tenancy when the Tenant had vacated. Prior to this, the damage was concealed by the Tenants rug. The Landlord engaged Mr Andy Rolston, a former professional carpet cleaner with over five years of experience in residential, commercial, and flood restoration work. Although he no longer works in the field and holds no formal qualifications, he previously owned and operated a carpet cleaning business.
Mr Rolston observed multiple stains on the carpet, including what appeared to be red wine, tea, and other substances. He stated the stains appeared longstanding and confirmed the carpet was ruined, primarily due to a large urine stain that had not been treated promptly.
He used a moisture detection device commonly employed in flood restoration, which detects both moisture and urine crystals. While the carpet was dry at the time of inspection, the device beeped, indicating the presence of urine crystals. Mr Rolston explained that urine can remain in carpet fibres long-term and may emit odour in warm conditions as the crystals "sweat." He recalled the device activated during his inspection, confirming to him that urine was present.
The Landlord submitted a video of the carpet analysis, photographs of the stained areas, and the insurance assessment report. The insurance assessor identified three types of damage: red wine, urine, and another unspecified source.
While the Tenant had arranged for a carpet cleaner on the final day of the tenancy, by that time the damage was already extensive. The Tenant then cancelled this carpet cleaner because they were advised by tenancy services that due to the age of the carpet they were not required to clean it. The Tenant provided evidence from their carpet cleaner confirming they had previously treated a wine stain and were booked into clean at the end of the tenancy but this was cancelled on the day.
The Tenant admitted to causing only one stain, but the Landlord contended the damage went well beyond reasonable wear and tear and had not been disclosed during the tenancy.
The Landlord referred to prior conversations with the Tenant suggesting the carpet may have been damaged earlier. In August 2023, the Tenant asked about installing laminate flooring in the lounge; in June 2024, she said she would clean the carpet after winter; and in January 2025, she inquired about the carpet's age. The Landlord had also offered to clean the carpet at the end of the tenancy, knowing the Tenant was under financial hardship and had stopped paying rent due to job loss.
The Tenant declined the offer, stating she would clean the carpet herself due to a tea stain she had oversaturated. She also admitted to a red wine spill earlier in the tenancy, which she claimed was treated by a cleaner. The Landlord provided text message evidence confirming the Tenant’s acknowledgment of the tea and wine stains. The Tenant submitted she would not tolerate cat urine in her property so it would have been cleaned immediately if she had noticed.
The Landlord submitted that the carpet was wool, with an expected lifespan of 20–25 years, and was in good condition when the Tenant moved in. There was no pre-tenancy inspection to indicate the stain was present at the start of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant caused the urine stain. Although no ingoing inspection report was provided, the Landlord submitted that the stain had been concealed under a large rug and was only discovered at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant had a cat at the premises and had previously engaged a carpet cleaner for a red wine spill. She admitted to oversaturating a tea stain, but the Landlord’s evidence — supported by Mr Rolston’s inspection — identified the substance as urine, not tea.
The Tenant failed to inform the Landlord of any damage during the tenancy. I find the stain was sufficiently prominent that, had it been present at the start of the tenancy, the Tenant would have raised it. She did not claim it was not present at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, after being informed by Tenancy Services that she may not be required to clean the carpet due to its age, the Tenant immediately cancelled the professional cleaning. I find this behaviour indicates a lack of responsibility by the Tenant.
I also find Mr Rolston’s evidence persuasive. He presented as a credible and impartial witness, with no apparent reason to fabricate the need for carpet replacement. Although he no longer works in the industry, I accept he had sufficient practical experience and expertise to assess the nature and cause of the damage.
Accordingly, I find that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear, and that the Tenant has not discharged the onus of disproving it.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The carpet was at least ten years old and had a life span of 25 years.
The Landlord claimed compensation for compiling documents to assist the Tenant in securing funds through Work and Income NZ to cover their rent arrears. They claimed $73.00.
The Tenant disputed this claim.
In considering the evidence, I find that no supporting documentation, such as a receipt or invoice, was provided to substantiate the expense. Furthermore, the nature of the expense is not one that would typically be incurred in the ordinary course of managing a tenancy. As the cost was undertaken voluntarily by the Landlord, without prior agreement between the parties, I find that it is appropriate that the Landlord bears this expense themselves.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed $150.00 for the carpet inspection however no invoice was provided by the Landlord.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claims
The Tenant claimed refund of the bond and compensation. The Tenant alleged the Landlord breached her right to quiet enjoyment through repeated, unannounced visits, pressure, and a lack of empathy during a time of financial hardship.
The Tenant provided a witness statement from Fabian Max, which stated he observed the Landlord knocking on the Tenant’s door 3–4 times within a three- hour period. The Tenant claimed the Landlord (Jackie) visited the property without proper notice, including one occasion where she delivered a notice to remedy and a notice to vacate in person the same evening she asked if the Tenant was home. She said these visits, as well as frequent contact from Angela (co-owner or agent), were intrusive and pressured her while she was trying to secure alternative accommodation.
The Tenant said she was under significant financial and emotional strain at the time, being unemployed without family support. She alleges that the Landlords lacked empathy for her situation, declined to assist her with WINZ forms, and pressured her to move despite knowing of her hardship. She felt "hounded" and described being approached in the carpark, receiving messages about packing, and experiencing stress on the day of the move when she was approached while the moving truck arrived.
She contacted a health line and spoke to a counsellor due to the stress she experienced, describing the overall experience as one of being bullied and having her privacy breached. She provided a letter from her GP confirming that she had unresolved issues with her landlord who failed to return her bond. This created financial hardship and mental health challenges. The Tenant believed she had housing security after being told by the owners (Trish) that she could stay as long as she liked. She referenced a friendly relationship with the owners early on, including shared conversations and gestures (e.g. baking goods), which changed over time after financial issues arose. She stated she was not made aware that she would need to vacate the property so soon after signing up for bond assistance and expected a longer-term arrangement. She alleges that once the Landlords decided to sell the property, they became less accommodating, and the tone of their interactions changed. The Tenant mentioned regular door knocking, driveway encounters, and being "watched" by neighbours acting on behalf of the Landlords.
The Landlords stated they had ongoing discussions about selling the property and informed the Tenant approximately five months before she left. They emphasized that the information was shared to give her time to prepare and that they did not pressure her to vacate early. The decision to sell was due to financial need, with both Jackie and her mother holding mortgages on the property.
The Landlords highlighted a text message from the Tenant on 21 October 2024, where she responded “I’m free now,” which they interpreted as consent for a visit to deliver the 90-day notice and rent arrears letter. They claim that between 22 October and 9 January, they had no direct contact with the Tenant and that any prior communications were limited and documented.
The Tenant had previously expressed interest in purchasing the property, which the Landlords took as a sign of goodwill and tenancy stability. This contributed to their surprise at the later claims of pressure or unfair treatment. On 12 January 2025, the Landlord wrote a positive reference letter for the Tenant, describing her as a “good tenant,” which they argue shows a lack of animosity or intention to bully or pressure her. The Landlord provided evidence of text messages to support their actions.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlords did not breach the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. The Landlords were attempting to resolve ongoing rent arrears, having previously developed a friendly and supportive relationship with the Tenant that extended beyond the typical landlord–tenant arrangement. When the Tenant encountered financial hardship, I do not find that the Landlords acted in an intrusive, harassing, or bullying manner. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that their approach remained measured and considerate.
There is no legal obligation on a landlord to complete WINZ forms on behalf of a tenant, and I do not accept that the refusal to do so constituted a breach of quiet enjoyment. A tenant is required to pay rent on time, and the Landlords’ efforts to engage with the Tenant were directed at resolving the situation without initiating formal proceedings. Although the Tenant produced some medical evidence indicating she was experiencing distress, I find that this was primarily related to the consequences of not meeting her legal obligations under the tenancy, rather than any inappropriate conduct by the Landlords. On balance, I find the Landlords’ actions in managing the tenancy and attempting to resolve rent arrears were reasonable.
The Tenants claim for compensation is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216031 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 72 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216031 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 72 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.