What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223051 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited $447.00

How much money was awarded in case 5223051?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223051?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443956-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223051 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited $447.00

How much money was awarded in case 5223051?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223051?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443956-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 75 Pottery Lane, Coromandel, Coromandel 3506 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223051 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223051 — net $447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$1,080.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$447.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$447.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited $447.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (5426391-006) to Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Walsh appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by telephone.
The landlord acts as agent for the property owner, who is also the tenant’s employer. However, the tenancy agreement records the applicant as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord.
The tenancy was a periodic service tenancy commencing on 08 August 2023.
On 02 April 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking carpet cleaning costs of $446.50. The landlord stated that the tenant had allowed a rabbit to be kept at the property without permission, and that over the Christmas / New Years period 2024/2025 the rabbit urinated and defecated on the carpet in the two bedrooms, lounge, and hallway.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the carpet to be cleaned. After the application was filed the landlord advised that the tenancy ended on 25 May 2025. The landlord stated that the carpet had been cleaned twice, but the soiling and odour was unable to be removed. An insurance claim was accepted, and the carpet replaced in each room.
The landlord stated because the damage had been caused by an animal kept at the property, the applicable excess was $900.00 per room (bedroom one, bedroom two, lounge and hallway together).
The landlord is claiming the insurance excesses of $2,700.00. The original carpet cleaning claim is no longer pursued. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Evidence
The landlord stated that the damage was discovered during an inspection in January 2025, and that nothing had been noted in the previous inspection in 2024. The landlord described the odour as overwhelming, with significant number of flies, and stated it was clear that an animal had urinated and defecated on the carpet throughout the property. The landlord’s evidence was that allowing the rabbit to roam freely made damage virtually certain.
The tenant stated that over the Christmas / New Year period they had come and gone from the property, and that family had been to stay. The tenant accepted that a rabbit had been brought to the property, contrary to the terms of the agreement, but believed it was kept in a cage. The tenant accepted that it appeared the rabbit was allowed to roam freely.
Although they were responsible, the tenant argued they should not be liable for the full amount claimed. The tenant questioned the extent of the damage, stating that associates had commented that the smell was not as bad as claimed by the landlord.
The tenant also submits that betterment should be taken into account, noting that although the carpet was in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it was “old” and had existing stains and soiling.
At the hearing, the landlord was asked about the age of the carpet. The landlord stated that the property had been purchased 15 years ago but could not confirm whether the carpet had been replaced since then.
The landlord stated that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that rubbish had not been removed, and that rent had been lost while the carpet and other chattels were being replaced. However, these claims were not included in the application.
The landlord stated that betterment was not relevant, and the tenant should be liable for the full amount as claimed. Analysis and conclusion
There is no pre tenancy checklist. During the hearing, the landlord produced some photographs of the carpet taken at an inspection in July 2024. These showed the lounge and both bedrooms, although the carpet is partially obscured by the tenant’s furniture.
The photographs of the carpet taken by the landlord show staining and soiling in the two bedrooms. In the lounge, the urine has soaked through the carpet and underlay to the wooden floor beneath. The carpet in the lounge was more effected than the carpet in the bedrooms.
The evidence establishes that the carpet in each room was damaged during the tenancy, and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage was intentional. It is more likely than not the result of carelessness.
The starting point is that the tenant is liable for the excesses claimed. However, I disagree with the landlord that betterment is irrelevant. The fact that other claims may have been made is not material. The claim for damage must be assessed on its merits.
Carpet in residential rental properties has an expected useful life span of 10 – 12 years. The evidence establishes that the carpet was at least 15 years old, though in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Section 85 of the Act states the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, rather than strict legal rights and technicalities.
On this basis, I reduce the claim by 60% for betterment and award the landlord $1,080.00 toward the excess. Costs
Because Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Neither party seeks name suppression, and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223051 — net $447.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$1,080.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$447.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$447.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited $447.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (5426391-006) to Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Walsh appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by telephone.
The landlord acts as agent for the property owner, who is also the tenant’s employer. However, the tenancy agreement records the applicant as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord.
The tenancy was a periodic service tenancy commencing on 08 August 2023.
On 02 April 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking carpet cleaning costs of $446.50. The landlord stated that the tenant had allowed a rabbit to be kept at the property without permission, and that over the Christmas / New Years period 2024/2025 the rabbit urinated and defecated on the carpet in the two bedrooms, lounge, and hallway.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the carpet to be cleaned. After the application was filed the landlord advised that the tenancy ended on 25 May 2025. The landlord stated that the carpet had been cleaned twice, but the soiling and odour was unable to be removed. An insurance claim was accepted, and the carpet replaced in each room.
The landlord stated because the damage had been caused by an animal kept at the property, the applicable excess was $900.00 per room (bedroom one, bedroom two, lounge and hallway together).
The landlord is claiming the insurance excesses of $2,700.00. The original carpet cleaning claim is no longer pursued. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage the Tribunal must also consider 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Evidence
The landlord stated that the damage was discovered during an inspection in January 2025, and that nothing had been noted in the previous inspection in 2024. The landlord described the odour as overwhelming, with significant number of flies, and stated it was clear that an animal had urinated and defecated on the carpet throughout the property. The landlord’s evidence was that allowing the rabbit to roam freely made damage virtually certain.
The tenant stated that over the Christmas / New Year period they had come and gone from the property, and that family had been to stay. The tenant accepted that a rabbit had been brought to the property, contrary to the terms of the agreement, but believed it was kept in a cage. The tenant accepted that it appeared the rabbit was allowed to roam freely.
Although they were responsible, the tenant argued they should not be liable for the full amount claimed. The tenant questioned the extent of the damage, stating that associates had commented that the smell was not as bad as claimed by the landlord.
The tenant also submits that betterment should be taken into account, noting that although the carpet was in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it was “old” and had existing stains and soiling.
At the hearing, the landlord was asked about the age of the carpet. The landlord stated that the property had been purchased 15 years ago but could not confirm whether the carpet had been replaced since then.
The landlord stated that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that rubbish had not been removed, and that rent had been lost while the carpet and other chattels were being replaced. However, these claims were not included in the application.
The landlord stated that betterment was not relevant, and the tenant should be liable for the full amount as claimed. Analysis and conclusion
There is no pre tenancy checklist. During the hearing, the landlord produced some photographs of the carpet taken at an inspection in July 2024. These showed the lounge and both bedrooms, although the carpet is partially obscured by the tenant’s furniture.
The photographs of the carpet taken by the landlord show staining and soiling in the two bedrooms. In the lounge, the urine has soaked through the carpet and underlay to the wooden floor beneath. The carpet in the lounge was more effected than the carpet in the bedrooms.
The evidence establishes that the carpet in each room was damaged during the tenancy, and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage was intentional. It is more likely than not the result of carelessness.
The starting point is that the tenant is liable for the excesses claimed. However, I disagree with the landlord that betterment is irrelevant. The fact that other claims may have been made is not material. The claim for damage must be assessed on its merits.
Carpet in residential rental properties has an expected useful life span of 10 – 12 years. The evidence establishes that the carpet was at least 15 years old, though in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Section 85 of the Act states the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, rather than strict legal rights and technicalities.
On this basis, I reduce the claim by 60% for betterment and award the landlord $1,080.00 toward the excess. Costs
Because Hosts on The Coast 2021 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Neither party seeks name suppression, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223051 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 75 Pottery Lane, Coromandel, Coromandel 3506

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223051 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 75 Pottery Lane, Coromandel, Coromandel 3506

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.