What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350151 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 5350151?

Suppression Of The Parties’ Names An…: $598.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350151?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350151 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 5350151?

Suppression Of The Parties’ Names An…: $598.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350151?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350151 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350151. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address. 2. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The lan	$598.00		suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address. 2. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The lan
Bond	$3,800.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350151. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address. 2. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The lan	$598.00		suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address. 2. [The tenant/s] are to pay [The lan
Bond	$3,800.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $598.00 from the bond, for carpet cleaning.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $598.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,202.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[Tenant 1], representing the tenants, and [The property manager/s], representing the landlord, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 13 July 2025. Landlord’s Claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the 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. Carpet cleaning
The landlord said the tenant was allowed to have a dog at the property and that the carpet in the garage was smelling heavily of dog at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said they asked the tenant to cover the cost of cleaning and deodorising the garage carpet, in the amount of $287.50, which was carried out and was paid by the tenants.
After the garage carpet was cleaned and deodorised, the landlord indicated their carpet cleaner recommended the cleaning of the carpet upstairs in the house, saying it also smelled of dog and had dog fur. The landlord said they asked the tenant about this and texted a quote to one of the tenants on 18 July 2025 about the cost of cleaning the carpets in the house. The tenant who was texted the quote told the landlord to go ahead and do what they needed to and apologise to the new tenants, with whom these tenants said they had ties in the community.
The landlord proceeded to have the carpet cleaned in the house on 26 July 2025, as had been agreed by the tenant. However, on 15 August 2025, the tenant told the landlord they no longer agreed to pay for the carpet cleaning or for other issues raised between the parties.
It was not disputed by the tenant that one of the tenants had agreed to the quote for the carpet cleaning and told the landlord to go ahead. The tenant said they believed it was inappropriate to be asked that by text, that it should have been dealt with by email, and that the agreement occurred before they knew their rights.
The tenant acknowledged during the hearing, in response to a question from me, that they could well have told the landlord, when asked about paying for the carpet cleaning in the house and being provided with a quote for this, that they wanted to get back to them after finding out more about their obligations.
In terms of contract law, from the evidence provided, I find that the elements of a contract are likely present, such as offer/acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty. There was no evidence provided about any potential vitiating factors, such as lack of capacity, illegality, misrepresentation, mistake, that might negate any such contract, in theory.
Here the tenant was sent the carpet cleaning quote, accepted the quote and agreed for the landlord to go ahead with this and agreed that they would cover this, the landlord then proceeded with the carpet cleaning on this basis and the tenant subsequently has failed to pay for this cost agreed to. The tenant could have chosen to obtain advice before making this agreement, but did not do so.
Aside from addressing any merits of the carpet claim itself, the tenant clearly agreed to cover the carpet cleaning cost and did not dispute this cost until after it was incurred by the landlord, who relied on the tenant’s initial agreement. Given this agreement/contract between the parties, and the landlord’s reliance on that agreement thereby incurring the carpet cleaning cost, I find the tenant is responsible for the carpet cleaning cost of $598.00. Flea treatment
The landlord also claimed $399.00 for a flea treatment. The landlord said new tenants moved into the property on 16 July 2025 and started noticing bites on their family around 21 July 2025. The landlord said they called in a pest control company, who attended the property on 1 August 2025. The pest control specialist said he saw fleas on 1 August 2025 at the property and they were found in the master bedroom upstairs and in the living room downstairs. The landlord said the new tenants did not have pets.
The tenant said that, whilst they had a dog living at the property, with the landlord’s consent, they strictly kept their dog only downstairs and installed a baby gate to ensure the dog remained downstairs. The tenant explained that only the upstairs area in the property was carpeted and downstairs was laminate flooring. The tenant said the dog did not go upstairs and, before they left, they cleaned the laminate flooring downstairs thoroughly. The tenant said there were no fleas or flea bites from their dog during the tenancy, nor were there any fleas or flea bites from their dog at their new property after they moved. The tenant said the lifecycle of a flea is short and they need a host to survive. The tenant did not believe that any fleas from their dog would have survived the period from the end of the tenancy on 13 July 2025 to first being noticed by new tenants around 21 July 2025, especially without any obvious host for the fleas left at the property. The tenant also pointed out that the landlord discovered rats in the upstairs of the property at the end of the tenancy, which could have explained fleas being discovered upstairs in the property.
The landlord disputed that fleas had a short lifecycle and provided an email from their pest control specialist indicating that flea eggs can remain dormant for weeks to months before going through their life cycle, if a property is locked up or vacant for a period of time. The eggs were said to need carbon dioxide and vibrations to encourage them to hatch and new tenants will be bitten shortly after moving into the property.
The tenant said the property was not vacant, however, as new tenants had moved in very soon after they left and the bites took several days longer to show up.
The landlord agreed they were told by the tenants towards the end of the tenancy about their concern about rats, said they called in a pest control company who laid bait for any rats the day after the tenancy ended, and confirmed the follow up visit discovered dead rats and a nest of rats upstairs at the property. The landlord said the dead rats and nest were discovered in the ceiling cavity of a bedroom opposite the master bedroom, but pointed out that fleas were also discovered downstairs.
Though there was a relatively short time frame between the end of the tenancy and the discovery of bites by the new tenants, there was no evidence provided confirming the bites suffered by the new tenants were actually flea bites. The landlord said the new tenants experienced eczema generally, but that the bites they had were different from this. The bites as reported by the new tenants were presumed to be flea bites by the landlord.
The tenant’s evidence was that their dog did not have fleas, nor did they experience flea bites at the time they left the tenancy and that it was over a week later after moving in that the new tenants experienced any bites.
The complicating factor here is confirmation that the landlord discovered rats and a nest of rats at the property around the time the tenancy ended, which could also explain any possible fleas found at the property.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is likely that any fleas discovered were attributable to the tenant’s dog, especially given the presence of rats at the property found in the ceiling at the end of the tenancy. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of this claim and so I dismiss this claim.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. Garage carpet replacement
The landlord said that, after cleaning and deodorising the garage carpet, that did not sort out the problem with a strong smell in the garage carpet. The landlord claimed for a replacement of the garage carpet and provided a quote for $1,980.39 for this. The landlord said the owner had not yet proceeded to replace the garage carpet as they were waiting for the Tribunal decision about this. The landlord said the old garage carpet remains in the garage, at the time of hearing, with the property being currently tenanted by new tenants for the last 5 months up to the hearing date.
The tenant pointed to the report of the landlord’s carpet cleaning specialist, who said the garage carpet smelled ‘amazing’ just after being cleaned and deodorised. I note the carpet cleaner also commented that the smell got worse again after the door was left closed and likely due to the wet weather too.
The tenant pointed out that, during the tenancy, they drove their cars into the garage and parked in there, tracking in dirt and rain over the period of the tenancy. They said that there was also heavy rain, which would come down the driveway and into the bottom of the garage, creating a wet moisture smell in the garage carpet.
The landlord said there had been heavy rain since the new tenants had moved in but there were no reports of water leaks into the garage. The landlord indicated the carpet had been installed in the garage in November 2022. Further, the landlord said they had filed two insurance claims for the garage carpet – one for the dog smell, which was declined as it did not relate to one event, and another claim for damage to the carpet from wet weather, which was also declined as they said the tenant would not give them details of the dates of the alleged heavy wet weather that might have damaged the carpet. The tenant said they did not have exact dates to give the landlord.
The landlord did not provide any inspection reports that commented on the smell or condition of the garage carpet, or photographs of the garage carpet. Whilst the landlord provided additional supporting evidence of the need for the cleaning and deodorising of the garage carpet, there was no additional supporting evidence of a tradesperson’s opinion that a replacement carpet was required for the garage, however, nor was there evidence provided that any issue with the garage carpet was beyond fair wear and tear.
I note further that the landlord has not had the garage carpet replaced yet, and only provided a quote for the cost of doing this, and that new tenants have continued living at the property without the old garage carpet having to be replaced for the last 5 months or so. Thus, the landlord has not yet incurred any cost of replacement of the garage carpet, and the evidence is unclear as whether the landlord would actually replace the garage carpet either.
As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of any the extent of any longer term damage to the garage carpet where the garage carpet requires replacement, or that any such longer term damage was caused during the tenancy, or was beyond fair wear and tear, given cars were regularly parked in the garage with wet tyres, or that the landlord has incurred any actual loss yet, as they have not yet replaced the garage carpet. Given this, I dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $598.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,202.00 Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As both parties have had partial success with their claims, I grant name suppression to both parties. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350151 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350151 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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