What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338124 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 5338124?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338124?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338124 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 5338124?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338124?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

102 Dunkeld Drive, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338124 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,100.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,240.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 11 July 2025. The applicant has made this application alleging that the entire house was covered in dog urine and that the flooring across the majority of the property, which was under two years old, needed to be replaced. In support of their application, they have provided a report from the carpet cleaner. They say that approximately four inspections were conducted during the course of the tenancy and that no issues were raised prior, and that a joint final inspection was also conducted at the property and no concerns were raised at that point either.
The tenant accepts that there may have been some smell resulting from the dog, and also from the shampooing that was done immediately before vacating the property and the windows subsequently being left closed. They do not accept that the carpet was soiled, that the dog urinated in the property, or that carpet replacement was justified.
The obligations that the landlord is alleging were breached, which I have surmised from their submissions, are that the tenant failed in their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I also understand that they are alleging that the extent of the damage amounts to a breach of section 40(2)(a), in that they say the tenant caused intentional or careless damage.
The burden of proof in a case like this rests with the applicant to prove to the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that what they are claiming is what actually occurred. What that means is that I must be satisfied, to a degree greater than 51%, that what they say happened is more likely than what the other party says happened.
There are several issues with the evidence provided. The only evidence that gives me any third-party information about the alleged damage is from a company called [cleaning company]. It is a service report that states there was “persistent strong urine odour” and “visual staining.” They say they conducted blue-light testing and concluded that treatment would be in vain and that the carpets must be replaced.
There are several issues with this report. First, it alleges that there were 10 stains in each of the areas assessed. They have provided photos, but these show no visual staining of the kind described in the body of the report. The report purports to show blue-light evidence of staining, however, all I can see is a blue light being shone upon the carpet. There is nothing to suggest that any staining was present.
I raised these concerns with the applicant and offered them the opportunity to provide photographic evidence of the extensive damage, which, as described, would be extremely extensive. After the hearing, they sent me an email from the contractor who completed the work, specifically addressing the concerns I had raised. I do not consider this to be impartial or reliable evidence, as it responds to the issues I raised to the applicant almost to the point. Therefore, I place no weight on it.
Another point is that the applicant tells me they conducted three-monthly inspections and that the property was cluttered, preventing them from observing any staining. Furthermore, if the property was cluttered to obscure issues, then the pungent odour described should reasonably have been detected. It does not add up to me that on every three-month inspection no problem was identified if damage of this extent was occurring on a gradual basis.
When I raised this concern during the hearing, the applicant told me that all of the damage occurred in the final three months of the tenancy. However, the tenant states that at the final inspection, one of the owners of the property was present and no issues were raised with them. I accept that some types of damage might be overlooked in an inspection, but not damage to the extent alleged or described in the report.
I accept that there was some odour remaining at the end of the tenancy, which is to be expected if a dog has been living at the property. Although there is no default obligation on a tenant to shampoo carpets, if having a pet results in additional work being required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state, then it is reasonable that the tenant cover the cost of that additional work.
While it is not credible, in my view, that five areas required the level of remediation described, and that no reliable evidence was gathered to support that work, I do accept that some level of cleaning was required. I therefore consider it appropriate for the tenant to pay one excess to compensate for this cost.
The landlord has asked for $650.00 per excess. The excess recorded in the tenancy agreement is $550.00, and this is the amount I can award.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,100.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,240.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended on 11 July 2025. The applicant has made this application alleging that the entire house was covered in dog urine and that the flooring across the majority of the property, which was under two years old, needed to be replaced. In support of their application, they have provided a report from the carpet cleaner. They say that approximately four inspections were conducted during the course of the tenancy and that no issues were raised prior, and that a joint final inspection was also conducted at the property and no concerns were raised at that point either.
The tenant accepts that there may have been some smell resulting from the dog, and also from the shampooing that was done immediately before vacating the property and the windows subsequently being left closed. They do not accept that the carpet was soiled, that the dog urinated in the property, or that carpet replacement was justified.
The obligations that the landlord is alleging were breached, which I have surmised from their submissions, are that the tenant failed in their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I also understand that they are alleging that the extent of the damage amounts to a breach of section 40(2)(a), in that they say the tenant caused intentional or careless damage.
The burden of proof in a case like this rests with the applicant to prove to the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that what they are claiming is what actually occurred. What that means is that I must be satisfied, to a degree greater than 51%, that what they say happened is more likely than what the other party says happened.
There are several issues with the evidence provided. The only evidence that gives me any third-party information about the alleged damage is from a company called [cleaning company]. It is a service report that states there was “persistent strong urine odour” and “visual staining.” They say they conducted blue-light testing and concluded that treatment would be in vain and that the carpets must be replaced.
There are several issues with this report. First, it alleges that there were 10 stains in each of the areas assessed. They have provided photos, but these show no visual staining of the kind described in the body of the report. The report purports to show blue-light evidence of staining, however, all I can see is a blue light being shone upon the carpet. There is nothing to suggest that any staining was present.
I raised these concerns with the applicant and offered them the opportunity to provide photographic evidence of the extensive damage, which, as described, would be extremely extensive. After the hearing, they sent me an email from the contractor who completed the work, specifically addressing the concerns I had raised. I do not consider this to be impartial or reliable evidence, as it responds to the issues I raised to the applicant almost to the point. Therefore, I place no weight on it.
Another point is that the applicant tells me they conducted three-monthly inspections and that the property was cluttered, preventing them from observing any staining. Furthermore, if the property was cluttered to obscure issues, then the pungent odour described should reasonably have been detected. It does not add up to me that on every three-month inspection no problem was identified if damage of this extent was occurring on a gradual basis.
When I raised this concern during the hearing, the applicant told me that all of the damage occurred in the final three months of the tenancy. However, the tenant states that at the final inspection, one of the owners of the property was present and no issues were raised with them. I accept that some types of damage might be overlooked in an inspection, but not damage to the extent alleged or described in the report.
I accept that there was some odour remaining at the end of the tenancy, which is to be expected if a dog has been living at the property. Although there is no default obligation on a tenant to shampoo carpets, if having a pet results in additional work being required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state, then it is reasonable that the tenant cover the cost of that additional work.
While it is not credible, in my view, that five areas required the level of remediation described, and that no reliable evidence was gathered to support that work, I do accept that some level of cleaning was required. I therefore consider it appropriate for the tenant to pay one excess to compensate for this cost.
The landlord has asked for $650.00 per excess. The excess recorded in the tenancy agreement is $550.00, and this is the amount I can award.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338124 — Cleanliness at 102 Dunkeld Drive, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338124 — Cleanliness at 102 Dunkeld Drive, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions