What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364781 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 5364781?

Cleaning: $573.56 awarded to landlord; Carpet Insurance Assessment: $90.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,530.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364781?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13306253-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364781 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 5364781?

Cleaning: $573.56 awarded to landlord; Carpet Insurance Assessment: $90.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,530.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364781?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13306253-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364781 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364781 — net $2,221.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$573.56	Carpet cleaning
Carpet insurance assessment	$90.30	Carpet insurance assessment
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,530.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,221.86
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,221.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,221.86 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,221.86 [The tenant/s]: $578.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has made a cross application seeking compensation. Background
The tenancy commenced on 17 December 2024 and ended on 19 September 2025.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord says damage was discovered to the carpet and underlay, said to have been caused by pet urine. The landlord claims: a. Carpet cleaning of $573.56. b. Insurance assessment of $90.30. c. Carpet replacement (and underlay) of $3,400.00.
The tenant disputes liability and seeks a full refund of the bond. Burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing the claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the claim is more likely than not to be correct.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, it is for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed regardless of its apparent merit. The Tribunal does not investigate or obtain evidence on behalf of the parties.
Absolute certainty is not required. The Tribunal must weigh all of the evidence, including oral evidence, and determine what is more probable. Liability for Damage
A landlord must first establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. If that is established, the tenant must show that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
Tenants are also responsible for the acts of persons at the premises with their permission (ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). Assessment of the Evidence
The landlord says the carpet was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy. Cleaning was initially undertaken but was unsuccessful, and replacement was required. Insurance was not pursued due to the level of excess ($2,500 per room).
The landlord relies on evidence from a contractor who attended on 1 October 2025 and carried out steam cleaning and sanitisation in several rooms. At that time, other areas were assessed as unaffected. A further inspection on 17 October 2025 identified odour issues in multiple rooms. Upon lifting the carpet, urine contamination was found in the underlay and, in some areas, the concrete substrate. Replacement of underlay and treatment or replacement of carpet was recommended.
There is nothing noted in the ingoing inspection report regarding smell. The final inspection report records that while the carpet was generally in reasonable condition, a noticeable odour was present and detected by multiple people, including a professional.
The landlord also says new tenants issued a 14-day notice requiring the issue to be remedied.
The tenants deny responsibility. They say the property was left clean and tidy, with no odour present. They provided statements from others who attended near the end of the tenancy and did not detect any smell. The tenants acknowledge having a dog but say there were no issues with urination inside and that carpets were regularly cleaned. Findings
Odour-based damage is inherently difficult to assess, as it cannot be readily verified by photographs and involves a degree of subjectivity.
However, I place weight on the contemporaneous records. The ingoing inspection does not note any odour. The outgoing inspection records a noticeable smell. This is supported by independent contractor evidence identifying urine contamination extending into the underlay and substrate.
Weighing the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that urine-related damage to the carpet and underlay occurred during the tenancy.
I find that this damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenants have not displaced liability.
Accordingly, the tenants are responsible for the damage to the carpet and underlay.
There is no evidence to suggest the damage was intentional. I therefore treat the damage as careless under s49B of the RTA. Quantum and depreciation
The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing report records it as being in generally good condition, with signs of wear from foot traffic and some staining. The landlord estimates it was approximately five years old at that time.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must avoid betterment. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not to receive the benefit of new-for-old replacement.
This requires an allowance for depreciation, considering the age, condition, and expected useful lifespan of the carpet.
Carpets usually have a useful lifespan in the order of 10-12 years. On that basis, the carpet was approximately midway through its useful life at the end of the tenancy, I consider a further modest reduction is appropriate to reflect the pre-existing wear and staining noted at the start of the tenancy. Doing so, I assess the remaining value at approximately forty-five percent of the replacement cost.
Apply that approach to the claimed replacement cost of $3,400.00 results in an award of $1,530.00 for carpet and underlay replacement.
I am satisfied that the cleaning cost of $573.56 and the insurance assessment cost of $90.30 were reasonably incurred as part of the landlord’s attempts to diagnose and remedy the issue. These amounts are allowed in full.
The total award for damage is $2,193.86 which is below the statutory cap of four weeks’ rent under s49B(3) of the RTA. Other matters
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
Both parties seek name suppression.
The landlord has been substantially successful. The tenants have achieved some reduction in the amount claimed and were reasonably entitled to challenge the claim.
Balancing the parties’ private interests against the public interest in publication, I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate in this case (s 95A RTA). R Harvey-Lane 18 March 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364781 — net $2,221.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$573.56	Carpet cleaning
Carpet insurance assessment	$90.30	Carpet insurance assessment
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,530.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,221.86
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,221.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,221.86 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,221.86 [The tenant/s]: $578.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has made a cross application seeking compensation. Background
The tenancy commenced on 17 December 2024 and ended on 19 September 2025.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord says damage was discovered to the carpet and underlay, said to have been caused by pet urine. The landlord claims: a. Carpet cleaning of $573.56. b. Insurance assessment of $90.30. c. Carpet replacement (and underlay) of $3,400.00.
The tenant disputes liability and seeks a full refund of the bond. Burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. The party bringing the claim must establish it on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the claim is more likely than not to be correct.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, it is for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case. If they fail to do so, the claim must be dismissed regardless of its apparent merit. The Tribunal does not investigate or obtain evidence on behalf of the parties.
Absolute certainty is not required. The Tribunal must weigh all of the evidence, including oral evidence, and determine what is more probable. Liability for Damage
A landlord must first establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. If that is established, the tenant must show that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
Tenants are also responsible for the acts of persons at the premises with their permission (ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). Assessment of the Evidence
The landlord says the carpet was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy. Cleaning was initially undertaken but was unsuccessful, and replacement was required. Insurance was not pursued due to the level of excess ($2,500 per room).
The landlord relies on evidence from a contractor who attended on 1 October 2025 and carried out steam cleaning and sanitisation in several rooms. At that time, other areas were assessed as unaffected. A further inspection on 17 October 2025 identified odour issues in multiple rooms. Upon lifting the carpet, urine contamination was found in the underlay and, in some areas, the concrete substrate. Replacement of underlay and treatment or replacement of carpet was recommended.
There is nothing noted in the ingoing inspection report regarding smell. The final inspection report records that while the carpet was generally in reasonable condition, a noticeable odour was present and detected by multiple people, including a professional.
The landlord also says new tenants issued a 14-day notice requiring the issue to be remedied.
The tenants deny responsibility. They say the property was left clean and tidy, with no odour present. They provided statements from others who attended near the end of the tenancy and did not detect any smell. The tenants acknowledge having a dog but say there were no issues with urination inside and that carpets were regularly cleaned. Findings
Odour-based damage is inherently difficult to assess, as it cannot be readily verified by photographs and involves a degree of subjectivity.
However, I place weight on the contemporaneous records. The ingoing inspection does not note any odour. The outgoing inspection records a noticeable smell. This is supported by independent contractor evidence identifying urine contamination extending into the underlay and substrate.
Weighing the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that urine-related damage to the carpet and underlay occurred during the tenancy.
I find that this damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenants have not displaced liability.
Accordingly, the tenants are responsible for the damage to the carpet and underlay.
There is no evidence to suggest the damage was intentional. I therefore treat the damage as careless under s49B of the RTA. Quantum and depreciation
The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing report records it as being in generally good condition, with signs of wear from foot traffic and some staining. The landlord estimates it was approximately five years old at that time.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must avoid betterment. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not to receive the benefit of new-for-old replacement.
This requires an allowance for depreciation, considering the age, condition, and expected useful lifespan of the carpet.
Carpets usually have a useful lifespan in the order of 10-12 years. On that basis, the carpet was approximately midway through its useful life at the end of the tenancy, I consider a further modest reduction is appropriate to reflect the pre-existing wear and staining noted at the start of the tenancy. Doing so, I assess the remaining value at approximately forty-five percent of the replacement cost.
Apply that approach to the claimed replacement cost of $3,400.00 results in an award of $1,530.00 for carpet and underlay replacement.
I am satisfied that the cleaning cost of $573.56 and the insurance assessment cost of $90.30 were reasonably incurred as part of the landlord’s attempts to diagnose and remedy the issue. These amounts are allowed in full.
The total award for damage is $2,193.86 which is below the statutory cap of four weeks’ rent under s49B(3) of the RTA. Other matters
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the filing fee is reimbursed.
Both parties seek name suppression.
The landlord has been substantially successful. The tenants have achieved some reduction in the amount claimed and were reasonably entitled to challenge the claim.
Balancing the parties’ private interests against the public interest in publication, I am satisfied that suppression is appropriate in this case (s 95A RTA). R Harvey-Lane 18 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364781 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364781 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

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