What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287161 about?

The tribunal order states: The names of the other tenants in the tenancy have been removed from the

How much money was awarded in case 5287161?

Compensation: $642.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,858.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304165-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287161 about?

The tribunal order states: The names of the other tenants in the tenancy have been removed from the

How much money was awarded in case 5287161?

Compensation: $642.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,858.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304165-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Schooner Drive, Whitby, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287161 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287161 — net $3,528.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation 1 May to 14 June 2025	$642.86	Compensation 1 May to 14 June 2025
Compensation 15 June to 23 August 2025	$2,858.57	Compensation 15 June to 23 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.43

The names of the other tenants in the tenancy have been removed from the order because they were not parties to this claim.

Nansons Property Management As Agent For Christopher And McKenzie Rogers must pay [The party] $3,528.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

[The party] is not liable for any further rent payments after 23 August 2025.

Reasons

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for compensation because the premises has a noticeable dog smell. He claims that, despite carpet cleaning, the dog smell remains. Has the landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonable stated of cleanliness?

Section 45(1) (a) requires landlords to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant’s claim is that a dog smell in the carpet proves that the landlord failed this obligation.

The tenancy began on 22 March 2025. On 27 April the tenant emailed the property manager (landlord) informing her that after living at the property for a month he was finding the dog smell unbearable. He indicated that vacuuming and deodorizer had not solved the problem. He stated that it disturbed his sleep most nights. He concluded by asking the landlord for solutions to solve the issue.

The landlord indicated that she would visit to check the premises. Her letter to the tenant following her visit stated that there was a faint smell in the lounge but no dog smell in his bedroom. She suggested he use ‘Shake’n Vac’ a few times in the carpet and opening his windows to air the bedroom.

On 6 May the tenant emailed the landlord, expressing his appreciation for her visit. He stated that having the odour for 5 weeks indicated that property was not handed over in a reasonably clean condition. He suggested a “proper clean of the carpets”.

On 9 May the landlord responded stating that the owners (who had lived at the property with their dog before the tenancy) had done “everything possible to get rid of the smell in the carpet before tenanting the property. They thoroughly washed/cleaned the carpet over a 2 day period, had the interior of the property commercially cleaned and the carpet deodorised by the commercial cleaners. Given the effort that the owners went to, I’m really not sure why you think the carpet is “deeply embedded with grime”. The landlord offered to purchase the deodorizing product for the tenant to use.

The tenant responded requesting clarification about whether the carpets had been commercially cleaned or the owners had done the work. He had been advised they had not been commercially cleaned. He stated, “I appreciate the offer to purchase a deodorising product, though I want to be clear that the smell is still persisting despite ventilation and deodoriser. That suggests the issue isn’t just surface-level odour, but something deeper embedded in the carpet that hasn’t been properly addressed. I’m still open to resolving this reasonably and just want to ensure a fair and hygienic standard is upheld”.

On 12 May the landlord replied, “The owners had the property thoroughly cleaned before tenanting it. This is considered fair and reasonable, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act”.

On the same day, the tenant issued a 14 day notice to the landlord to have the bedroom carpet professionally cleaned.

The landlord contracted Jae’s carpet cleaners to clean the tenant’s bedroom carpet. On 20 May the contractor reported that: Room of interest smelled of a non-descript cleaning product; dog smell was not greatly present, if at all. Pre-sprayed with a weak oxidising solution to sterilise the carpet and kill any microbes that could be producing odours, then rinsed over with a deodorising solution.

On 23 May the tenant emailed the landlord claiming that the carpet still smelled of dog. The landlord replied, “Your tenancy is in a fixed term until 27 February 2026. If you wish to leave the tenancy, we are happy to release you from the tenancy, but you will need to find another tenant to replace you. There are conditions and associated fees in changing a tenant. If you would like to proceed, please let me know and I will email through the relevant document to begin the process. The landlord followed with a letter to all three tenants at the property informing them of the break lease process conditions and fees. The tenant replied that he would apply to the Tribunal for termination. The landlord offered to forego her costs to release him from the tenancy. The other two tenants stated that they did not want the tenancy to end without the tenant paying his share of the rent. The tenant offered to pay rent to 27 June and would not accept responsibility for rent after that date. On 31 May the landlord advised the this was not acceptable to the landlord or the other two tenants.

The tenant lodged his application with the Tribunal on 14 June 2025.

The tenant left the property and began living elsewhere after 14 June. Some of his goods remain at the premises.

The matter was heard on 25 July. The hearing was adjourned. The Tribunal requested a tenancy mediator attend the premises and report to the Tribunal regarding whether there was a dog smell in the premises. The mediator attended the premises at 2pm on 7 August 2025. Her report states: During a visit to the premises at 62 Schooner Drive, Whitby, Porirua, I conducted an inspection to determine whether there was a noticeable dog-related odour present. Upon entering the premises, which opens into an open-plan dining and lounge area, I could smell a dog-related odour. I then proceeded to inspect [The party]’s bedroom. While kneeling beside the bed, I smelt the carpet and could detect a dog-related odour in that area as well. Based on these observations, a dog-related odour was present in both the lounge/dining area and the bedroom.

I am satisfied that the mediator carried out the task I requested, to report whether there was a dog smell in the premises. The mediator’s report confirms the tenant’s claim that despite cleaning taking place, the dog odour remains.

I am satisfied that the dog smell in the premises has been present from the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has not provided the property in a reasonably clean condition because there is a dog smell coming from the carpet.

The landlord disputes that there is a significant dog smell in the premises. I accept that different people smell odours differently. This is because people have different genetic variations in their olfactory receptors. It is possible that some people will enter the premises and not notice a dog smell. However if a tenant notices a dog smell, that is the most important person that the landlord has to consider. The landlord had to make the premises liveable for the tenant who had difficulty living there because of the dog smell that exists there. The mediator confirmed that smell. Is compensation due to the tenant because of the landlord’s failure to rectify the smell.

It was possible for the landlord to rectify the problem by replacing the carpet in the premises. But because the landlord did not accept that the dog smell was significant, this was not contemplated.

The landlord could have offered to release the tenant from the property and accept the lesser rent that two tenants would be paying until a new tenant was found that was not affected by the smell. Instead, the landlord required the tenant to pay rent until a new tenant was found. The landlord stated that a new tenant has now been found to replace the applicant.

The tenant is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience caused by the problem carpet. The problem was from the commencement of the tenancy. There was a minor disruption due to cleaning in the tenant’s room. The tenant did not have the benefit or enjoyment of the property that could be expected in a tenancy. Understandably, the relationship between this tenant and the other two tenants deteriorated because the situation created tension for all three tenants.

The tenant is entitled to compensation for the period where he was living at the property and putting up with the smell. I have dated that compensation period commencing 1 May, shortly after he notified the landlord of the problem on 27 April. But the major compensation due is that because the landlord did not rectify the problem or release the tenant from the tenancy with no obligation to pay rent. The tenant moved out but has still paid rent. By the time the tenant moved out he had been living with the problem for almost two months.

I accept that it was reasonable for the tenant to leave the premises. Where there is a dog smell coming from a carpet and it is not able to be removed and the carpet is not replaced, the only way to avoid the smell is to stop living in the premises.

The landlord has suggested that the tenant wanted to break the fixed term and used the dog smell as a way of getting out of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence for me to reach that conclusion. There is evidence from the tenant’s emails show that early on in the tenancy he complained of a dog smell from the carpet that he was finding hard to live with.

I have granted compensation of $100.00 per week for the period from 1 May to 14 June. I have ordered the refund of rent the tenant paid from 15 June to 23 August, the period he was not living at the premises. I have ordered that no further rent be paid to the landlord by this tenant.

The tenant has claimed the cost of having to move his goods while cleaning was taking place. No separate order is made for that inconvenience. It is covered by the other orders.

The tenant has requested less than the amount ordered. The Tribunal is not limited to ordering compensation that a party seeks. Parties often do not know the compensation they are entitled to. The fact that the tenant’s goods have remained at the property after he left, has not prevented another tenant occupying the premises. No loss to the landlord has resulted from goods remaining while this dispute has been litigated.

I have considered the law, the evidence and the merits and justice of the case. The loss to the landlord by this order mirrors the position the landlord would have been in if the landlord offered compensation to the tenant for the period before he stopped living at the premises and the tenant was allowed to leave on 14 June, without having to pay further rent. Filing Fee

Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287161 — net $3,528.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation 1 May to 14 June 2025	$642.86	Compensation 1 May to 14 June 2025
Compensation 15 June to 23 August 2025	$2,858.57	Compensation 15 June to 23 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.43