What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342588 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 5342588?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $194.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; French Door: $380.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13330905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342588 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 5342588?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $194.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; French Door: $380.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13330905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342588 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342588 — net $494.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Pet odour	$194.00		Carpet Cleaning: Pet odour
Repairs: Replacement carpet (depreciated	$200.00		Repairs: Replacement carpet (depreciated
Repairs: French door	$380.65		Repairs: French door
Carpet Cleaning: Dye removal	$60.00		Carpet Cleaning: Dye removal
Cleaning: Curtains	$160.00		Cleaning: Curtains
Exemplary damages (per order dated 15 February 2026		$500.00	Exemplary damages (per order dated 15 February 2026
Total award	$994.65	$500.00
Net award	$494.65
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$494.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Ltd As Agent For A & S Wolf $494.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Ltd As Agent For A & S Wolf: $494.65 [The tenant/s]: $2,385.35

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ginette Smythe and Mr Brendon Taylor represented the landlord. [Redacted] were approved to represent the tenants.
The landlord had applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A prior order dated 15 February 2026 was subject to a landlord rehearing application and consideration. A partial rehearing on landlord claims only was ordered. This was to be determined by me, de novo, meaning the claims were considered fresh and without reference to the previous orders where appropriate.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2024 and ended on 24 July 2025.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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.
The tenants did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The issues, and subsequent claims, mostly pertain to legacy odours or damage from pets. One cat was permitted in the Tenancy Agreement. It is not disputed a dog was introduced into the tenancy later by the tenant, without prior permission being sought from the landlord.
I heard submissions from both parties. I accept it is more likely than not that there was a legacy odour issue from the pets. I accept the tenant contemplation of other possibilities but in the absence of any such issues being raised on, or during the tenancy regarding pre-existing problems, this possibility is excluded. In terms of post-exit access and odour, I must consider the duration of the tenancy, with pets resident, being more than likely the period of damage, rather than some random entry in the vacated period as speculated.
The landlord firstly attempted to clean/deodorise the carpet. This cost $194.00 but was unsuccessful. A separate claim of $60.00 for the removal of a carpet stain was previously mutually agreed and ordered. That is carried over into this order.
Carpet damage is revisited below. I find the cost of the carpet cleaning is a tenant liability and I award the invoiced costs.
The landlord also claimed for similar deodorising treatment to curtains and some walls. This was conducted at a cost of $180.00 and successful. This invoice is also awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 cost of repairing the related damage is less than the excess amount, the lesser of the two will apply. In this matter, I have determined the full or depreciated costs for the related insurance claim is lesser than the excess amount of $750.00. I have therefore ordered full costs.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Bedroom carpet
The apparent odour was raised by the new tenants and confirmed but others. Despite the attempts at removing the odour, it remained. The prior lack of notice of such a problem from those in the house, or those entering or inspecting it at exit is not considered fatal to the claim. The change in occupancy and removal of possessions, coupled with extended periods of the premises being secured with limited airflow, must be considered, as should differing levels of tolerance.
The bedroom carpet was replaced under insurance. The excess was $750.00 and partial contributions to other invoices under the claim were advised.
The carpet itself was of uncertain age but is considered no younger than 10 years, no older than 15. I have adopted the average of 12.5 years for the purposes of this order.
It appears in reasonable condition at commencement although here is a history of prior pets. The odour issue confronted was due to underlay saturation. The landlord contemplated a carpet lift and replacement after underlay replacement. That would have been a lower cost option although not that different from the excess and subsequent replacement of both.
I have to consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Carpet has an economic life of 8-12 years. In a lower traffic area such as this bedroom, one might expect the life to be at the longer end. That still means the carpet is at the end of its economic life. However, based on the submissions and photos from the landlord, I accept there was possible further use reasonably expected beyond this tenancy, but for the pet damage. To reflect that I make an award of $200.00 towards the cost to the landlord of the new carpet. French doors
The front door shows signs of dog scratching. No dog was permitted in the tenancy, nor permission sought. The entry photos were compared to the exit. The damage was confirmed as occurring during this tenancy.
[Redacted] submitted the repairs and cost included betterment due to repainting. I turned my mind to that but on balance, unlike the carpet, I consider the necessary repairs to the door were mostly to the wood. While some betterment could be argued vis-à-vis the subsequently painting, I accept this invoice in full, aware that the carpet equation could be equally argued as overly generous to the tenant.
In what is an inexact science, being depreciation, I have considered the two awarded amounts and on balance the result overall feels fair.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Tenant name suppression was granted in the 15 February 2026 it is continued.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342588 — net $494.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Pet odour	$194.00		Carpet Cleaning: Pet odour
Repairs: Replacement carpet (depreciated	$200.00		Repairs: Replacement carpet (depreciated
Repairs: French door	$380.65		Repairs: French door
Carpet Cleaning: Dye removal	$60.00		Carpet Cleaning: Dye removal
Cleaning: Curtains	$160.00		Cleaning: Curtains
Exemplary damages (per order dated 15 February 2026		$500.00	Exemplary damages (per order dated 15 February 2026
Total award	$994.65	$500.00
Net award	$494.65
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$494.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Ltd As Agent For A & S Wolf $494.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Ltd As Agent For A & S Wolf: $494.65 [The tenant/s]: $2,385.35

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ginette Smythe and Mr Brendon Taylor represented the landlord. [Redacted] were approved to represent the tenants.
The landlord had applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A prior order dated 15 February 2026 was subject to a landlord rehearing application and consideration. A partial rehearing on landlord claims only was ordered. This was to be determined by me, de novo, meaning the claims were considered fresh and without reference to the previous orders where appropriate.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2024 and ended on 24 July 2025.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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.
The tenants did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The issues, and subsequent claims, mostly pertain to legacy odours or damage from pets. One cat was permitted in the Tenancy Agreement. It is not disputed a dog was introduced into the tenancy later by the tenant, without prior permission being sought from the landlord.
I heard submissions from both parties. I accept it is more likely than not that there was a legacy odour issue from the pets. I accept the tenant contemplation of other possibilities but in the absence of any such issues being raised on, or during the tenancy regarding pre-existing problems, this possibility is excluded. In terms of post-exit access and odour, I must consider the duration of the tenancy, with pets resident, being more than likely the period of damage, rather than some random entry in the vacated period as speculated.
The landlord firstly attempted to clean/deodorise the carpet. This cost $194.00 but was unsuccessful. A separate claim of $60.00 for the removal of a carpet stain was previously mutually agreed and ordered. That is carried over into this order.
Carpet damage is revisited below. I find the cost of the carpet cleaning is a tenant liability and I award the invoiced costs.
The landlord also claimed for similar deodorising treatment to curtains and some walls. This was conducted at a cost of $180.00 and successful. This invoice is also awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 cost of repairing the related damage is less than the excess amount, the lesser of the two will apply. In this matter, I have determined the full or depreciated costs for the related insurance claim is lesser than the excess amount of $750.00. I have therefore ordered full costs.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Bedroom carpet
The apparent odour was raised by the new tenants and confirmed but others. Despite the attempts at removing the odour, it remained. The prior lack of notice of such a problem from those in the house, or those entering or inspecting it at exit is not considered fatal to the claim. The change in occupancy and removal of possessions, coupled with extended periods of the premises being secured with limited airflow, must be considered, as should differing levels of tolerance.
The bedroom carpet was replaced under insurance. The excess was $750.00 and partial contributions to other invoices under the claim were advised.
The carpet itself was of uncertain age but is considered no younger than 10 years, no older than 15. I have adopted the average of 12.5 years for the purposes of this order.
It appears in reasonable condition at commencement although here is a history of prior pets. The odour issue confronted was due to underlay saturation. The landlord contemplated a carpet lift and replacement after underlay replacement. That would have been a lower cost option although not that different from the excess and subsequent replacement of both.
I have to consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Carpet has an economic life of 8-12 years. In a lower traffic area such as this bedroom, one might expect the life to be at the longer end. That still means the carpet is at the end of its economic life. However, based on the submissions and photos from the landlord, I accept there was possible further use reasonably expected beyond this tenancy, but for the pet damage. To reflect that I make an award of $200.00 towards the cost to the landlord of the new carpet. French doors
The front door shows signs of dog scratching. No dog was permitted in the tenancy, nor permission sought. The entry photos were compared to the exit. The damage was confirmed as occurring during this tenancy.
[Redacted] submitted the repairs and cost included betterment due to repainting. I turned my mind to that but on balance, unlike the carpet, I consider the necessary repairs to the door were mostly to the wood. While some betterment could be argued vis-à-vis the subsequently painting, I accept this invoice in full, aware that the carpet equation could be equally argued as overly generous to the tenant.
In what is an inexact science, being depreciation, I have considered the two awarded amounts and on balance the result overall feels fair.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Tenant name suppression was granted in the 15 February 2026 it is continued.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342588 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342588 — 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