What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248694 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5248694?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns/Gardens: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $302.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248694?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248694 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5248694?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns/Gardens: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $302.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248694?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248694 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248694 — net $690.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns/Gardens	$100.00	e end also looked as if they needed a mow. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $100 towards the cost of the lawn tidy.
Lock/key replacement	$261.50	Lock/key replacement
Carpet damage	$302.45	Carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.95

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The claim for water arrears is withdrawn at the landlord’s request.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $690.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $690.95 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $514.52 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Lawns/Gardens$100.00 Lock/key replacement$261.50 Carpet damage$302.45 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$690.95 Bond$690.95$514.52
This was a long-term tenancy. The tenant rented a 2-bedroom home from the landlord and lived there from January 2018 until the tenancy ended in March 2025.
On 1 October 2025 the tenant sought an adjournment due to health issues. The Tribunal ordered a partial bond refund of $474.53 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] and directed that the balance of the bond of $1205.47 remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement of the parties or further order of the Tribunal.
The hearing was adjourned to 5 November 2025.
Both parties attended the hearing on 5 November 2025. The tenant was supported by her representative [The tenant’s representative]. The Tribunal was assisted by a Spanish interpreter.
The landlord applied for the following: (a)Water rates balance - $8.72. (b)Lawns/Gardens - $132.25 (c)Locks/Keys - $261.50 (d)Carpet installation (labour only) - $776.00. (e)Reimbursement of filing fee - $27.00.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for water arrears.

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

This tenancy ended by eviction following a breach of a conditional termination order. It is acknowledged that there was a difficult end to this 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.
The landlord sought reimbursement for the cost of changing the locks in the sum of $261.50 and provided a copy of the eviction notice. An invoice was provided. The eviction took place on 19 March 2025 and the locks were changed the same day. The tenant advised that she left the keys inside the premises when she was evicted. However, as the landlord needed to take possession of the premises by eviction and the locks were changed as part of that process the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the cost.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the exterior of the premises reasonably clean and tidy as the lawns were not mowed. The landlord sought the sum of $132.25 for weed eating as the lawns were so long. The tenant agreed that some exterior work was required but stated that she did not have time to do this as the end of the tenancy happened so fast. I have considered the photographs and whilst I acknowledge that there was a fast end to this tenancy there is evidence that the lawns had not been maintained for some time. I have also taken in to account the condition that the lawns were provided in at the beginning of the tenancy which although tidier than at the end also looked as if they needed a mow. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $100 towards the cost of the lawn tidy.

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 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.
The landlord claimed that damage to the carpets by way of stains and smell due to cats was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant denies causing damage to the carpets and disputed that there was any smell of cat urine.
It was agreed that the tenant had cats at the premises and earlier property managers were aware of this and allowed the situation to continue, thereby, waiving any claim for breach of the terms of the tenancy.
The landlord provided entry and exit photographs of the carpet, photographs of cats outside, a copy of an invoice for total carpet replacement which records the cost as $3024.50 and an email which itemises the labour cost at $776.00. The landlord stated that they are only seeking reimbursement for the labour cost.
The landlord stated that the age of the carpet was not known but was estimated to be at least 10 years old.
The tenant denied causing damage to the carpet and stated that she had four inside cats who were house trained and two outside cats. There were also stray cats in the area which were fed by the tenant, but she stated these were outside.
The tenant acknowledged that in the last few months of the tenancy the property manager at that time raised a concern about the cats and told her that the premises smelled. She stated that she believed he raised this because they did not have a good working relationship as prior to that time no concerns had been raised. The tenant stated that she works as a cleaner and arranged for the carpets to be cleaned.
I have carefully considered the evidence given by both parties. Although the landlord has waived the right to claim that the tenant was in breach by having cats at the property the Tribunal may still consider whether the presence of four cats inside the premises contributed to the claim that the carpet smelled of cat at the end of the tenancy. I have considered the entry and exit inspection reports. The entry inspection report records a mark on the carpet in one bedroom. The exit inspection records several stains to the carpet in the lounge and that the carpet throughout the premises was smelly. I find that it is more likely than not that there was some carpet damage and smell of cat in the premises at the end of the tenancy as recorded in the exit inspection and this was beyond fair wear and tear.
In considering the amount of compensation to order I have taken in to account some wear and tear due to the length of the tenancy, the age of the carpet and that it had an existing mark at the beginning of the tenancy. I find that it is appropriate to order the tenant to make a small contribution towards the carpet replacement and order a contribution of ten percent of the cost being $302.45.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the particular factors in this case the Tribunal finds that the interest of the parties outweighs the public interest in their names being published and orders suppression of identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248694 — net $690.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns/Gardens	$100.00	e end also looked as if they needed a mow. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $100 towards the cost of the lawn tidy.
Lock/key replacement	$261.50	Lock/key replacement
Carpet damage	$302.45	Carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.95

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The claim for water arrears is withdrawn at the landlord’s request.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $690.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $690.95 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $514.52 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Lawns/Gardens$100.00 Lock/key replacement$261.50 Carpet damage$302.45 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$690.95 Bond$690.95$514.52
This was a long-term tenancy. The tenant rented a 2-bedroom home from the landlord and lived there from January 2018 until the tenancy ended in March 2025.
On 1 October 2025 the tenant sought an adjournment due to health issues. The Tribunal ordered a partial bond refund of $474.53 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] and directed that the balance of the bond of $1205.47 remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement of the parties or further order of the Tribunal.
The hearing was adjourned to 5 November 2025.
Both parties attended the hearing on 5 November 2025. The tenant was supported by her representative [The tenant’s representative]. The Tribunal was assisted by a Spanish interpreter.
The landlord applied for the following: (a)Water rates balance - $8.72. (b)Lawns/Gardens - $132.25 (c)Locks/Keys - $261.50 (d)Carpet installation (labour only) - $776.00. (e)Reimbursement of filing fee - $27.00.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for water arrears.

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

This tenancy ended by eviction following a breach of a conditional termination order. It is acknowledged that there was a difficult end to this 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.
The landlord sought reimbursement for the cost of changing the locks in the sum of $261.50 and provided a copy of the eviction notice. An invoice was provided. The eviction took place on 19 March 2025 and the locks were changed the same day. The tenant advised that she left the keys inside the premises when she was evicted. However, as the landlord needed to take possession of the premises by eviction and the locks were changed as part of that process the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the cost.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the exterior of the premises reasonably clean and tidy as the lawns were not mowed. The landlord sought the sum of $132.25 for weed eating as the lawns were so long. The tenant agreed that some exterior work was required but stated that she did not have time to do this as the end of the tenancy happened so fast. I have considered the photographs and whilst I acknowledge that there was a fast end to this tenancy there is evidence that the lawns had not been maintained for some time. I have also taken in to account the condition that the lawns were provided in at the beginning of the tenancy which although tidier than at the end also looked as if they needed a mow. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $100 towards the cost of the lawn tidy.

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 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.
The landlord claimed that damage to the carpets by way of stains and smell due to cats was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant denies causing damage to the carpets and disputed that there was any smell of cat urine.
It was agreed that the tenant had cats at the premises and earlier property managers were aware of this and allowed the situation to continue, thereby, waiving any claim for breach of the terms of the tenancy.
The landlord provided entry and exit photographs of the carpet, photographs of cats outside, a copy of an invoice for total carpet replacement which records the cost as $3024.50 and an email which itemises the labour cost at $776.00. The landlord stated that they are only seeking reimbursement for the labour cost.
The landlord stated that the age of the carpet was not known but was estimated to be at least 10 years old.
The tenant denied causing damage to the carpet and stated that she had four inside cats who were house trained and two outside cats. There were also stray cats in the area which were fed by the tenant, but she stated these were outside.
The tenant acknowledged that in the last few months of the tenancy the property manager at that time raised a concern about the cats and told her that the premises smelled. She stated that she believed he raised this because they did not have a good working relationship as prior to that time no concerns had been raised. The tenant stated that she works as a cleaner and arranged for the carpets to be cleaned.
I have carefully considered the evidence given by both parties. Although the landlord has waived the right to claim that the tenant was in breach by having cats at the property the Tribunal may still consider whether the presence of four cats inside the premises contributed to the claim that the carpet smelled of cat at the end of the tenancy. I have considered the entry and exit inspection reports. The entry inspection report records a mark on the carpet in one bedroom. The exit inspection records several stains to the carpet in the lounge and that the carpet throughout the premises was smelly. I find that it is more likely than not that there was some carpet damage and smell of cat in the premises at the end of the tenancy as recorded in the exit inspection and this was beyond fair wear and tear.
In considering the amount of compensation to order I have taken in to account some wear and tear due to the length of the tenancy, the age of the carpet and that it had an existing mark at the beginning of the tenancy. I find that it is appropriate to order the tenant to make a small contribution towards the carpet replacement and order a contribution of ten percent of the cost being $302.45.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the particular factors in this case the Tribunal finds that the interest of the parties outweighs the public interest in their names being published and orders suppression of identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248694 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248694 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions