What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302179 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 5302179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace The Carpet: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302179?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302179 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 5302179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace The Carpet: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302179?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302179 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302179 — net $2,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace the carpet	$2,750.00	Replace the carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,778.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ names and all identifying details including the address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held as a telephone hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 29 November 2019 and ended on 17 April 2025. The tenants moved into other premises also owned by the landlord immediately after the tenancy ended. Apart from this dispute the landlord and the tenants have an ongoing amicable relationship.
At the end of the tenancy there were two clearly visible stains on the carpet, one in the hallway and the other in the third bedroom/office. The tenants had a carpet cleaner attempt to remove the stains. The process involved more than one clean, however the stains could not be removed. The landlord accepted the stains and agreed that the full bond could be transferred to the new tenancy.
Several weeks after the tenancy ended the landlord starting renovations in the lounge and became aware of an unpleasant smell coming from the carpet. In pulling back the carpet it was apparent that there were a number of stains on the carpet backing. Further inspection showed stains to the back of the carpet in the lounge, hallway and the three bedrooms. The carpet in all rooms had the same smell.
The landlord made an insurance claim. After the insurer arranged for [the carpet cleaning company] to assess the carpet damage the insurer agreed to replace the carpet, the underlay and the smooth edge. The subfloor in affected areas was treated and sealed to eliminate the odour. [The carpet cleaning company] determined that there was “severe and widespread urine contamination throughout every carpeted room in the house.”
The landlord’s claim to the insurer was accepted subject to the landlord being liable under its insurance policy to pay $550.00 excess for each of the five rooms. The landlord claims the total of the five excesses ($2,750.00) from the tenants. Are the tenants liable to pay the excess totalling $2,750.00?
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 1 .
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 2 . Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent 3 .
Careless damage is not defined in the RTA, but has a normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is the 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 Section 49B(3)(b) RTA. standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.
Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or a probable result of the breach. This means that the damage will not be compensated if considered to be too remote.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for 4 .
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.
After the tenancy ended the tenants were shown some of the stains on the carpet backing by the landlord. The landlord said the tenants explanation for the stains was that [the tenant]’s son, who was around 4 to 5 years old at the time the tenancy started 5 , had behavioural issues and “when things did not go his way he would wet the carpet”.
The tenants have no other explanation for the damage to the carpet. They had no pets living or otherwise in the house. Their evidence is that they never saw [the tenant]’s son pee on the carpet in the property and that they told the landlord it was a possibility that he had done so as they were aware he had peed on the carpet at school after he became overwhelmed. They said the tenant’s son stopped coming to the property towards the end of the tenancy after the tenants found that he had smeared faeces on a wall 6 .
I find the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy. After considering the evidence and in the absence of any other plausible explanation explaining the stains on the carpet backing and smell of urine in the carpet I find more likely than not, being the civil onus of proof, the damage was caused by the tenant’s son urinating on the carpet.
The photographs provided establish at least 9 areas of significant stains to the back of the carpet in the 5 rooms affected. In my view even if the tenants did not see the boy urinating on the carpet it is difficult to understand how the tenants would not have seen or smelled the wet areas at the time the damage occurred. This is the particularly the case as areas of carpet were sufficiently wet to affect 4 Section 49B(1) RTA. 5 He is now 10 years old 6 The son did not live full time at the premises the underlay as well as the flooring in some places. The damage is consistent with the behaviour known to have occurred at school.
Clearly it was in the tenants’ minds that [the tenant]’s son had caused the damage to have told the landlord there was a possibility that he had urinated on the carpet.
I do not find the damage was caused by fair wear and tear.
I consider the damage was carelessly caused. I am satisfied that a reasonably prudent tenant who was aware of the behavioural issues of the tenant’s son would be watching out for behaviours that were likely to result in the boy urinating on the carpet, and at least would have been keeping an eye out for wet areas on the carpet when he was there.
As set out above when damage is carelessly caused tenants liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. The limit for liability is for each separate event that causes damage to different parts of the premises. In this case I find each stain on the carpet is a separate event. The landlord’s insurer has applied one excess to each room regardless of whether there is more than one stain in the room.
The excess per room of $550.00 is less than four weeks’ rent; rent being $550 a week.
In making this order, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been, if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and their otherwise useful life span.
I am satisfied that carpet in rental premises generally has an average life span of the around 10 years. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy and was around 55% through its life span at the end of the tenancy. The cost to replace the carpet, underlay, smooth edge and remedy the areas where stains had penetrated the flooring was $6,999.84.
I am satisfied that the cost to replace the carpet must include the remedial work required before the new carpet could be laid.
The five insurance excesses claimed under section 49B ($2,750.00) is less than the depreciated value of the carpet (being $3,149.93 which is 45% of $6,999.84).
Accordingly I find the tenants are liable to pay the amount claimed. Other matters
As the landlord has been successful in its claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant both applied for suppression of their names and the address of the tenancy at the hearing. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I order suppression of both parties’ names and the address of the premises. In doing so I consider the interests of the tenant’s in suppressing any details that may identify the tenant’s son’s identity outweigh all other factors.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302179 — net $2,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace the carpet	$2,750.00	Replace the carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,778.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ names and all identifying details including the address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,778.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held as a telephone hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 29 November 2019 and ended on 17 April 2025. The tenants moved into other premises also owned by the landlord immediately after the tenancy ended. Apart from this dispute the landlord and the tenants have an ongoing amicable relationship.
At the end of the tenancy there were two clearly visible stains on the carpet, one in the hallway and the other in the third bedroom/office. The tenants had a carpet cleaner attempt to remove the stains. The process involved more than one clean, however the stains could not be removed. The landlord accepted the stains and agreed that the full bond could be transferred to the new tenancy.
Several weeks after the tenancy ended the landlord starting renovations in the lounge and became aware of an unpleasant smell coming from the carpet. In pulling back the carpet it was apparent that there were a number of stains on the carpet backing. Further inspection showed stains to the back of the carpet in the lounge, hallway and the three bedrooms. The carpet in all rooms had the same smell.
The landlord made an insurance claim. After the insurer arranged for [the carpet cleaning company] to assess the carpet damage the insurer agreed to replace the carpet, the underlay and the smooth edge. The subfloor in affected areas was treated and sealed to eliminate the odour. [The carpet cleaning company] determined that there was “severe and widespread urine contamination throughout every carpeted room in the house.”
The landlord’s claim to the insurer was accepted subject to the landlord being liable under its insurance policy to pay $550.00 excess for each of the five rooms. The landlord claims the total of the five excesses ($2,750.00) from the tenants. Are the tenants liable to pay the excess totalling $2,750.00?
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 1 .
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 2 . Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent 3 .
Careless damage is not defined in the RTA, but has a normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is the 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 Section 49B(3)(b) RTA. standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.
Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or a probable result of the breach. This means that the damage will not be compensated if considered to be too remote.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for 4 .
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.
After the tenancy ended the tenants were shown some of the stains on the carpet backing by the landlord. The landlord said the tenants explanation for the stains was that [the tenant]’s son, who was around 4 to 5 years old at the time the tenancy started 5 , had behavioural issues and “when things did not go his way he would wet the carpet”.
The tenants have no other explanation for the damage to the carpet. They had no pets living or otherwise in the house. Their evidence is that they never saw [the tenant]’s son pee on the carpet in the property and that they told the landlord it was a possibility that he had done so as they were aware he had peed on the carpet at school after he became overwhelmed. They said the tenant’s son stopped coming to the property towards the end of the tenancy after the tenants found that he had smeared faeces on a wall 6 .
I find the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy. After considering the evidence and in the absence of any other plausible explanation explaining the stains on the carpet backing and smell of urine in the carpet I find more likely than not, being the civil onus of proof, the damage was caused by the tenant’s son urinating on the carpet.
The photographs provided establish at least 9 areas of significant stains to the back of the carpet in the 5 rooms affected. In my view even if the tenants did not see the boy urinating on the carpet it is difficult to understand how the tenants would not have seen or smelled the wet areas at the time the damage occurred. This is the particularly the case as areas of carpet were sufficiently wet to affect 4 Section 49B(1) RTA. 5 He is now 10 years old 6 The son did not live full time at the premises the underlay as well as the flooring in some places. The damage is consistent with the behaviour known to have occurred at school.
Clearly it was in the tenants’ minds that [the tenant]’s son had caused the damage to have told the landlord there was a possibility that he had urinated on the carpet.
I do not find the damage was caused by fair wear and tear.
I consider the damage was carelessly caused. I am satisfied that a reasonably prudent tenant who was aware of the behavioural issues of the tenant’s son would be watching out for behaviours that were likely to result in the boy urinating on the carpet, and at least would have been keeping an eye out for wet areas on the carpet when he was there.
As set out above when damage is carelessly caused tenants liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. The limit for liability is for each separate event that causes damage to different parts of the premises. In this case I find each stain on the carpet is a separate event. The landlord’s insurer has applied one excess to each room regardless of whether there is more than one stain in the room.
The excess per room of $550.00 is less than four weeks’ rent; rent being $550 a week.
In making this order, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been, if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and their otherwise useful life span.
I am satisfied that carpet in rental premises generally has an average life span of the around 10 years. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy and was around 55% through its life span at the end of the tenancy. The cost to replace the carpet, underlay, smooth edge and remedy the areas where stains had penetrated the flooring was $6,999.84.
I am satisfied that the cost to replace the carpet must include the remedial work required before the new carpet could be laid.
The five insurance excesses claimed under section 49B ($2,750.00) is less than the depreciated value of the carpet (being $3,149.93 which is 45% of $6,999.84).
Accordingly I find the tenants are liable to pay the amount claimed. Other matters
As the landlord has been successful in its claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant both applied for suppression of their names and the address of the tenancy at the hearing. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I order suppression of both parties’ names and the address of the premises. In doing so I consider the interests of the tenant’s in suppressing any details that may identify the tenant’s son’s identity outweigh all other factors.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302179 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302179 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions