What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225311 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 5225311?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,171.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225311?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225311 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 5225311?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,171.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225311?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225311 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225311 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225311 — net $1,320.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repair	$1,171.71	Door repair
Cleaning	$225.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$244.27	Window repairs
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement
Net award	$1,320.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,320.98

Claims and awards for application 5225311 — net $1,320.98 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Door repair

Amount: $1,171.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair

Cleaning

Amount: $225.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $244.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Carpet replacement

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Net award

Landlord $1,320.98

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,320.98

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord's name and identifying details.
Hannah Faith Farrand-Collins and Bene Viliamu Papalii must pay [The landlord/s] $1,320.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord. The tenancy has ended, the landlord now seeks compensation at the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlord Door repair$1,171.71 Cleaning$225.00 Window repairs$244.27 Carpet replacement$2,000.00 Total award$3,640.98 Minus bond- $2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,320.98
Only the Landlord (property manager) appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 13 March 2024. There are two co-tenants, Hannah Faith Farrand-Collins and Bene Viliamu Papalii.
During the course of the tenancy, the property manager raised breaches of the tenancy agreement, where the tenants had a dog on the premises, in breach of the ‘no pets’ clause in the tenancy agreement.
A tenancy mediation occurred on 16 October 2024, where the tenants agreed to have the dog removed from the premises. The mediated agreement records that the tenants confirmed they would have the dog in the property removed.
The tenancy ended by way of notice from the tenants, with the tenants vacating the premises on 20 January 2025.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal on 4 April 2025. A video hearing was convened on 26 September 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the Landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Door repairs x 3$1,171.71 b. Cleaning$225.00 c. Window replacement$244.27 d. Carpet damage$5,600.00

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Door repair

The landlord stated that three doors in the premises were damaged during the tenancy, with holes made in the doors. The landlord had these doors repaired. The landlord claims repair costs of $1,171.71, with reference to an invoice from Neil Winter. Photographs of the doors have been provided to the Tribunal. Analysis
I am satisfied that the doors were damaged during the tenancy, and that damage is not fair wear and tear. The onus then shifts to the tenants to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and they have not done that. I find the tenants responsible for the door damage. The amount claimed is reasonable for the extent of the damage, and is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were mostly clean, but some cleaning was required, including the kitchen cupboards, pantry, fireplace, and the windows were dirty. The landlord refers to an invoice from ‘Reet Petite Cleaning’ to the sum of $225.00. Again photographs have been provided. Analysis
As above, the tenants must return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. The premises do not have to be returned immaculate, only reasonably clean. I am satisfied that the tenants have not returned the premises at the necessary standard, so they must be responsible for paying the cleaning cost. The amount of the cleaning claim in this case is reasonably modest for commercial cleaning charges, and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Window replacement
The landlord claims costs for repair of one of the glass panels on a door that was broken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers to an invoice from Ziggy’s Glass for $244.27. Analysis
The evidence is that one of the window panes on a door was broken when the premises were returned to the landlord. That is confirmed in photographs provided by the landlord. There is no evidence to support that damage as being fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional. That means they must be liable for the repair cost, which is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Carpet damage
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet damage. The landlord states there was extensive staining on the carpet, believed to be from dog urine. The landlord states that the tenants had mats throughout the premises during the tenancy, hence they did not realise the staining that was present.
The landlord refers me to a statement from Chemdry, which records that they had inspected the carpets, and there was staining to the carpet that could not be removed. Chemdry say that “The yellow marks are dog urine”.
The Landlord believes that the carpet is around 17 years old, but states it was in “excellent condition, it was pretty much perfect”.
An insurance claim was lodged and there were 7 separate excesses to the premises, and the landlord has claimed the total of those excesses being $5,600.00. Analysis
I accept that the carpets are extensively stained, that is confirmed in the photographs provided to the Tribunal. The evidence further supports that the staining is the result of most probably dog urine.
As I indicated to the property manager at the hearing today, there are two cases where the courts have considered claims for dog urine damage that are relevant.
The District Court considered whether dog urine damage would be ‘intentional damage’ under the RTA. Judge Smith in Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, considered a claim for damage to carpets caused by dog urine. The evidence was that the tenant allowed a dog onto the premises which had urinated on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Tribunal in the first instance dismissed the landlord’s claim, which was appealed to the District Court. The District Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s conclusions, confirming that: I am of the view that the adjudicator [In the Tribunal] was wrong at law in concluding that the damage was not intentional. The tenant by letting inside a dog or dogs was in breach of a specific clause in the tenancy agreement. That act was intentional but no loss was caused per se by the breach of that clause. However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court subsequently in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, there were two dogs on the premises, that had extensively stained the carpets: On handover of the property in December 2017, Mr Guo discovered that the carpet was extensively stained. The stains covered a large area of the carpet and were prominent due to the light colour of the carpet, though the carpets had been cleaned professionally. There was evidence from a professional cleaner that the Korcks had attempted to remove the stains by using vinegar resulting in a chemical reaction with the cleaning agent. This had made the situation worse.
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered that the cost for the carpet replacement be paid by the tenants, relying on the above mentioned decision from Tekoa Trust. The District Court disagreed with the Tribunal, and overturned the Tribunal’s decision. The landlord appealed the District Court’s decision to the High Court.
The High Court confirmed that once the landlord establishes that the damage was caused during the tenancy, then it becomes for the tenant to prove it was not careless or intentional damage: I proceed on the basis that the landlord has established on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and it is for the tenants, here the Korcks, to show that the damage was not intentionally caused if they are to enjoy the benefit of the exoneration provisions.
Justice Walker went on to set aside the decision of the District Court and reinstating the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, stating: I conclude that the District Court Judge made an error of law when he determined that, because the tenancy permitted the two dogs, the damage by the dogs was not intentionally caused within the meaning of s 269(3)(a). I set aside the decision of the Court and re-instate the Order of the Tenancy Tribunal
The effect of those decisions is that when a tenant allows an animal into the premises, which urinates on the floor, if that occurred on one or two instances, it would fall into the careless category, but beyond that where the tenant allows more regular episodes, the damage would fall into the intentional category. The relevance being that if the damage was careless, the damages are capped at the level of the insurance excess, but if the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full cost of the damage. In this case, given the extent of the staining, I am in no doubt that the damage falls into the intentional category.
The question becomes, what is the level of the landlord’s loss that the Tribunal can compensate? The file indicates the full cost to replace the carpet is $8,589.40. However, the evidence is that the carpet is around 17 years old, so by any measure must be nearing the end of its useful life. I note that the Inland Revenue depreciation guides indicate that the useful economic life of carpet in a residential tenancy, is eight years. But there is also the evidence from the property manager, that the carpet was in excellent condition. I accept that, which would mean that the carpet would still have life in it yet. I note the photographs do not show damage to the carpet beyond staining.
Stepping back and considering the matter in the round, I have determined that ordering the tenants pay $2,000.00 towards the carpet replacement, would be fair, and that is ordered.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is ordered as the landlord has been almost wholly successful.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5225311 — net $1,320.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repair	$1,171.71	Door repair
Cleaning	$225.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$244.27	Window repairs
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement
Net award	$1,320.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,320.98

Claims and awards for application 5225311 — net $1,320.98 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Door repair

Amount: $1,171.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair

Cleaning

Amount: $225.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $244.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Carpet replacement

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Net award

Landlord $1,320.98

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,320.98

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord's name and identifying details.
Hannah Faith Farrand-Collins and Bene Viliamu Papalii must pay [The landlord/s] $1,320.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord. The tenancy has ended, the landlord now seeks compensation at the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlord Door repair$1,171.71 Cleaning$225.00 Window repairs$244.27 Carpet replacement$2,000.00 Total award$3,640.98 Minus bond- $2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,320.98
Only the Landlord (property manager) appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 13 March 2024. There are two co-tenants, Hannah Faith Farrand-Collins and Bene Viliamu Papalii.
During the course of the tenancy, the property manager raised breaches of the tenancy agreement, where the tenants had a dog on the premises, in breach of the ‘no pets’ clause in the tenancy agreement.
A tenancy mediation occurred on 16 October 2024, where the tenants agreed to have the dog removed from the premises. The mediated agreement records that the tenants confirmed they would have the dog in the property removed.
The tenancy ended by way of notice from the tenants, with the tenants vacating the premises on 20 January 2025.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal on 4 April 2025. A video hearing was convened on 26 September 2025.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the Landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Door repairs x 3$1,171.71 b. Cleaning$225.00 c. Window replacement$244.27 d. Carpet damage$5,600.00

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Door repair

The landlord stated that three doors in the premises were damaged during the tenancy, with holes made in the doors. The landlord had these doors repaired. The landlord claims repair costs of $1,171.71, with reference to an invoice from Neil Winter. Photographs of the doors have been provided to the Tribunal. Analysis
I am satisfied that the doors were damaged during the tenancy, and that damage is not fair wear and tear. The onus then shifts to the tenants to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and they have not done that. I find the tenants responsible for the door damage. The amount claimed is reasonable for the extent of the damage, and is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Cleaning
The landlord states that the premises were mostly clean, but some cleaning was required, including the kitchen cupboards, pantry, fireplace, and the windows were dirty. The landlord refers to an invoice from ‘Reet Petite Cleaning’ to the sum of $225.00. Again photographs have been provided. Analysis
As above, the tenants must return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. The premises do not have to be returned immaculate, only reasonably clean. I am satisfied that the tenants have not returned the premises at the necessary standard, so they must be responsible for paying the cleaning cost. The amount of the cleaning claim in this case is reasonably modest for commercial cleaning charges, and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Window replacement
The landlord claims costs for repair of one of the glass panels on a door that was broken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers to an invoice from Ziggy’s Glass for $244.27. Analysis
The evidence is that one of the window panes on a door was broken when the premises were returned to the landlord. That is confirmed in photographs provided by the landlord. There is no evidence to support that damage as being fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional. That means they must be liable for the repair cost, which is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Carpet damage
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet damage. The landlord states there was extensive staining on the carpet, believed to be from dog urine. The landlord states that the tenants had mats throughout the premises during the tenancy, hence they did not realise the staining that was present.
The landlord refers me to a statement from Chemdry, which records that they had inspected the carpets, and there was staining to the carpet that could not be removed. Chemdry say that “The yellow marks are dog urine”.
The Landlord believes that the carpet is around 17 years old, but states it was in “excellent condition, it was pretty much perfect”.
An insurance claim was lodged and there were 7 separate excesses to the premises, and the landlord has claimed the total of those excesses being $5,600.00. Analysis
I accept that the carpets are extensively stained, that is confirmed in the photographs provided to the Tribunal. The evidence further supports that the staining is the result of most probably dog urine.
As I indicated to the property manager at the hearing today, there are two cases where the courts have considered claims for dog urine damage that are relevant.
The District Court considered whether dog urine damage would be ‘intentional damage’ under the RTA. Judge Smith in Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, considered a claim for damage to carpets caused by dog urine. The evidence was that the tenant allowed a dog onto the premises which had urinated on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Tribunal in the first instance dismissed the landlord’s claim, which was appealed to the District Court. The District Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s conclusions, confirming that: I am of the view that the adjudicator [In the Tribunal] was wrong at law in concluding that the damage was not intentional. The tenant by letting inside a dog or dogs was in breach of a specific clause in the tenancy agreement. That act was intentional but no loss was caused per se by the breach of that clause. However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court subsequently in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, there were two dogs on the premises, that had extensively stained the carpets: On handover of the property in December 2017, Mr Guo discovered that the carpet was extensively stained. The stains covered a large area of the carpet and were prominent due to the light colour of the carpet, though the carpets had been cleaned professionally. There was evidence from a professional cleaner that the Korcks had attempted to remove the stains by using vinegar resulting in a chemical reaction with the cleaning agent. This had made the situation worse.
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered that the cost for the carpet replacement be paid by the tenants, relying on the above mentioned decision from Tekoa Trust. The District Court disagreed with the Tribunal, and overturned the Tribunal’s decision. The landlord appealed the District Court’s decision to the High Court.
The High Court confirmed that once the landlord establishes that the damage was caused during the tenancy, then it becomes for the tenant to prove it was not careless or intentional damage: I proceed on the basis that the landlord has established on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and it is for the tenants, here the Korcks, to show that the damage was not intentionally caused if they are to enjoy the benefit of the exoneration provisions.
Justice Walker went on to set aside the decision of the District Court and reinstating the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, stating: I conclude that the District Court Judge made an error of law when he determined that, because the tenancy permitted the two dogs, the damage by the dogs was not intentionally caused within the meaning of s 269(3)(a). I set aside the decision of the Court and re-instate the Order of the Tenancy Tribunal
The effect of those decisions is that when a tenant allows an animal into the premises, which urinates on the floor, if that occurred on one or two instances, it would fall into the careless category, but beyond that where the tenant allows more regular episodes, the damage would fall into the intentional category. The relevance being that if the damage was careless, the damages are capped at the level of the insurance excess, but if the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full cost of the damage. In this case, given the extent of the staining, I am in no doubt that the damage falls into the intentional category.
The question becomes, what is the level of the landlord’s loss that the Tribunal can compensate? The file indicates the full cost to replace the carpet is $8,589.40. However, the evidence is that the carpet is around 17 years old, so by any measure must be nearing the end of its useful life. I note that the Inland Revenue depreciation guides indicate that the useful economic life of carpet in a residential tenancy, is eight years. But there is also the evidence from the property manager, that the carpet was in excellent condition. I accept that, which would mean that the carpet would still have life in it yet. I note the photographs do not show damage to the carpet beyond staining.
Stepping back and considering the matter in the round, I have determined that ordering the tenants pay $2,000.00 towards the carpet replacement, would be fair, and that is ordered.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is ordered as the landlord has been almost wholly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225311 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225311 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions