What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5368801?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $442.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,116.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368801?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5368801?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $442.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,116.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368801?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12844494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 463 Mangapiko Street, Te Awamutu, Te Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368801 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 463 Mangapiko Street, Te Awamutu, Te Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368801 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368801 — net $783.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2025	$442.86	Rent arrears to 14 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage	$2,116.88	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage
Carpet Cleaning	$276.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$783.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$783.74

Claims and awards for application 5368801 — net $783.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14 September 2025

Amount: $442.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14 September 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage

Amount: $2,116.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $783.74

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $783.74

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan $783.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6090151-002) to Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Kate Taylor represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. It is not a question of a party not being “right” or not telling the truth, the sole issue is whether they have on the evidence presented, proven that their claim is more likely than not.
The claim for water rates was withdrawn.
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $442.86 (the application sought $422.86 in error, this total is accepted as an administrative error).

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.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. After the three- year tenancy the only issue that was raised afterwards was per odour in the carpet.
This was discussed between the parties. The tenant had cleaned the carpet (new at the start of the tenancy) and the photos support that, and that the carpet appeared in good condition. A deodorising carpet clean was signalled and arranged by the landlord. This cost $276.00 and is awarded.
A claim for lawnmowing sometime later after possession returned to the landlord was made. While empty, the grass kept growing. The reason cited was the delay in reletting due to the carpet condition and replacement. This lawnmowing claim for $210.25 is dismissed as the causation claimed is tenuous and there are many possible reasons for a delay between tenancies such that the landlord incurs lawn mowing effort or cost at its expense.
Unfortunately, the carpet treatment did not remove what the landlord claimed was an odour that permeated the carpeted areas of the house. She said the house was frequently aired but the offensive smell remained. The landlord believed the odour was not restricted to one area or room.
An insurance assessment was made and it confirmed pet odour existed that had not been able to be removed by treatment. There were four distinct carpeted areas in the house, the lounge/hallway, and three bedrooms. The insurer accepted the claim, deeming the damage was to four separate areas with an excess of $750.00 applying to each replacement. The landlord sought $3000.00 compensation on that basis.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

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.
Having considered the submissions and evidence I consider it more than likely the carpet and underlay was damaged by a lingering pet odour, such that it required replacement. The carpet was new before this tenancy commenced so any odour was a legacy of this tenancy. Smell is the most difficult of damages to prove remotely. It was also fair for a tenant here to challenge the extent of damage, given the discreet areas within the house that were recarpeted.
I believe the smell was not obvious during the tenancy. It was never raised by the landlord and a witness for the tenant confirmed in writing such an observation.
I am mindful that a vacated premises presents differently. Once all possessions are removed and the carpet cleaned, the identification of such odours may become obvious.
I do not find the proven that the smell was localised such that a partial carpet replacement strategy could be adopted here.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, especially when two pet dogs and two cats were present with permission from the start.
The loss incurred in carpet replacement was one sum ($,860.00) without breakdown but spread over four excesses. I needed to review each of the four to ensure each excess of $750.00 was the lesser than any depreciated value.
To do that, I adopted the estimated coverage of the lounge/hallway at 55% as made by the landlord, leaving 45% remaining across the three bedrooms of similar size. The carpet was three years old and I have adopted an economic life of eight years for depreciation purposes in this instance.
The carpet replacement cost was $4,860.00. The share of the lounge/hallway cost therefore is $2,673.00, making the $750.00 excess much lesser than the depreciated value. That excess is awarded in full.
The three bedrooms remaining cost share then is $729.00 each. The three excesses claimed are $750.00 each. After depreciation, the tenant share per room is $455.63 – lesser than the excess of each room (a total of $1,366.88).
I award the landlord compensation of $2,116.88, being the $750.00 excess for the lounge and three times $455.63 for the bedrooms recarpeting. Filing fee
Because Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368801 — net $783.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2025	$442.86	Rent arrears to 14 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage	$2,116.88	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage
Carpet Cleaning	$276.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$783.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$783.74

Claims and awards for application 5368801 — net $783.74 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14 September 2025

Amount: $442.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14 September 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage

Amount: $2,116.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement - pet damage

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $783.74

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $783.74

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan $783.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6090151-002) to Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Kate Taylor represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. It is not a question of a party not being “right” or not telling the truth, the sole issue is whether they have on the evidence presented, proven that their claim is more likely than not.
The claim for water rates was withdrawn.
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $442.86 (the application sought $422.86 in error, this total is accepted as an administrative error).

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.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. After the three- year tenancy the only issue that was raised afterwards was per odour in the carpet.
This was discussed between the parties. The tenant had cleaned the carpet (new at the start of the tenancy) and the photos support that, and that the carpet appeared in good condition. A deodorising carpet clean was signalled and arranged by the landlord. This cost $276.00 and is awarded.
A claim for lawnmowing sometime later after possession returned to the landlord was made. While empty, the grass kept growing. The reason cited was the delay in reletting due to the carpet condition and replacement. This lawnmowing claim for $210.25 is dismissed as the causation claimed is tenuous and there are many possible reasons for a delay between tenancies such that the landlord incurs lawn mowing effort or cost at its expense.
Unfortunately, the carpet treatment did not remove what the landlord claimed was an odour that permeated the carpeted areas of the house. She said the house was frequently aired but the offensive smell remained. The landlord believed the odour was not restricted to one area or room.
An insurance assessment was made and it confirmed pet odour existed that had not been able to be removed by treatment. There were four distinct carpeted areas in the house, the lounge/hallway, and three bedrooms. The insurer accepted the claim, deeming the damage was to four separate areas with an excess of $750.00 applying to each replacement. The landlord sought $3000.00 compensation on that basis.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

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.
Having considered the submissions and evidence I consider it more than likely the carpet and underlay was damaged by a lingering pet odour, such that it required replacement. The carpet was new before this tenancy commenced so any odour was a legacy of this tenancy. Smell is the most difficult of damages to prove remotely. It was also fair for a tenant here to challenge the extent of damage, given the discreet areas within the house that were recarpeted.
I believe the smell was not obvious during the tenancy. It was never raised by the landlord and a witness for the tenant confirmed in writing such an observation.
I am mindful that a vacated premises presents differently. Once all possessions are removed and the carpet cleaned, the identification of such odours may become obvious.
I do not find the proven that the smell was localised such that a partial carpet replacement strategy could be adopted here.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, especially when two pet dogs and two cats were present with permission from the start.
The loss incurred in carpet replacement was one sum ($,860.00) without breakdown but spread over four excesses. I needed to review each of the four to ensure each excess of $750.00 was the lesser than any depreciated value.
To do that, I adopted the estimated coverage of the lounge/hallway at 55% as made by the landlord, leaving 45% remaining across the three bedrooms of similar size. The carpet was three years old and I have adopted an economic life of eight years for depreciation purposes in this instance.
The carpet replacement cost was $4,860.00. The share of the lounge/hallway cost therefore is $2,673.00, making the $750.00 excess much lesser than the depreciated value. That excess is awarded in full.
The three bedrooms remaining cost share then is $729.00 each. The three excesses claimed are $750.00 each. After depreciation, the tenant share per room is $455.63 – lesser than the excess of each room (a total of $1,366.88).
I award the landlord compensation of $2,116.88, being the $750.00 excess for the lounge and three times $455.63 for the bedrooms recarpeting. Filing fee
Because Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Rebecca & Adrian Bunchan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368801 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 463 Mangapiko Street, Te Awamutu, Te

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368801 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 463 Mangapiko Street, Te Awamutu, Te

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions