What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368861 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 5368861?

Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet And Underlay: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368861?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13219987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368861 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 5368861?

Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet And Underlay: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368861?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13219987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44A Goodwin Drive, Rosehill, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368861 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368861 — net $1,661.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: including odour treatment and pest control	$494.50	Carpet Cleaning: including odour treatment and pest control
Replace carpet and underlay	$1,138.50	Replace carpet and underlay
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,661.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,661.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Penny Rae Keery must pay [The landlord/s] $1,661.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 17 October 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages accepting there were no grounds for such a claim.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 22 November 2024 with the fixed term due to end on 21 November 2025.
On 26 August 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy.
On 21 September 2025, the tenant gave the landlord notice to vacate the tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.
The tenancy ended on 28 September 2025, with the consent of the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to clean, deodorise, and flea treat the carpet?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $494.50 after paying a contractor to clean, deodorise and flea treat the carpet to remediate a strong pet urine odour and flea infestation following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
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) of the Act.
The tenancy agreement included special conditions allowing the tenant to keep two cats at the property. These conditions included an obligation that the tenant “keep the property reasonably clean and tidy” including: a. Remedying any damage caused by the cat to the house or grounds as soon as possible. b. Regularly cleaning any cat fouling from the grounds and the house. c. Monitoring the animal and the property regularly for the presence of fleas and arranging flea treatment for the animal and property as may be necessary to maintain the property in a flea free condition. The tenancy agreement also required that at the end of the tenancy, if the carpets were found to be below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy the tenant: d. Have the premises or chattels deodorised as required to remove the smells or odours or treat fleas; and e. The tenants may be liable for the costs of any additional services required to remove the smell of urine or odours or treat the premises and/or chattels on the premises for fleas as required, so that the premises meet the standard of ‘reasonably clean and tidy’.
The landlord claims that during the course of the tenancy the tenant was found to be breaching the pet clause. a. During a routine inspection on 27 May 2025 10 cats were found to be living at the property. The landlord recorded in the inspection report that significant cat fouling was observed coupled with a pervasive smell of cat urine. b. On 30 May 2025, a 14-day breach notice was issued requiring the tenant to remove eight cats and professionally remedy the cat urine odour and fouling. c. On 6 June 2025, the tenant acknowledged, in a series of e-mails, breaching the conditions of her pet clause and said she would rehome eight of the cats, fix any wear and tear, and clean the floors in the property to remove cat urine and fouling. d. On 19 June 2025, the 14-day breach notice had not been remedied. Three cats were sighted at the property, the urine odour persisted and there was no evidence the property had been cleaned.
On 29 September 2025, the landlord completed the exit inspection and told the Tribunal they discovered severe urine saturation of the flooring and a flea infestation. The landlord arranged for a carpet cleaner to inspect the property and provided photographs taken by the contractor using black lights showing urine staining of the carpet. A quote to replace the carpet was also provided. That quote recorded that there was a strong unpleasant odour in the property, visible signs of cat urine in most rooms and evidence of fleas jumping onto the legs of the contractor.
The landlord provided an invoice from their carpet cleaning contractor which records the carpet was cleaned, deodorised and flea treated. The landlord said that this work was undertaken in an attempt to bring the carpet to a reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
After considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had identified the property smelt of cat urine and showed evidence of pet fouling during a routine inspection of the property and issued a 14-day breach notice on 30 May 2025. In their email of 6 June 2025 the tenant accepted liability for the cat fouling and urine odour but failed to remedy the breach. The landlord and their contractors have recorded evidence of a strong unpleasant odour in the property, evidence of cat urine in most rooms and evidence of a flea infestation following the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal finds it was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned, deodorised and flea treated. The amount claimed is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,795.00 after paying a contractor to remove and replace the carpet and underlay that was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy after professional carpet cleaning and deodorisation failed to remove the odour. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
The landlord states they had to replace the carpet after professional carpet cleaning and deodorisation of the property failed to remove the ingrained pet urine odour. The landlord said they were unable to claim insurance as their insurance policy specifically excluded damage caused by domestic animals and their urine.
For the reasons outlined in paragraph [19] above the Tribunal is satisfied the carpet was damaged by cat urine during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the cat urine damage.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was new in 2018. The Tribunal considers carpet in a residential property generally has a life expectancy of around 10 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay compensation in the amount of $1,138.50. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368861 — net $1,661.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: including odour treatment and pest control	$494.50	Carpet Cleaning: including odour treatment and pest control
Replace carpet and underlay	$1,138.50	Replace carpet and underlay
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,661.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,661.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Penny Rae Keery must pay [The landlord/s] $1,661.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 17 October 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages accepting there were no grounds for such a claim.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 22 November 2024 with the fixed term due to end on 21 November 2025.
On 26 August 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy.
On 21 September 2025, the tenant gave the landlord notice to vacate the tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.
The tenancy ended on 28 September 2025, with the consent of the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to clean, deodorise, and flea treat the carpet?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $494.50 after paying a contractor to clean, deodorise and flea treat the carpet to remediate a strong pet urine odour and flea infestation following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
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) of the Act.
The tenancy agreement included special conditions allowing the tenant to keep two cats at the property. These conditions included an obligation that the tenant “keep the property reasonably clean and tidy” including: a. Remedying any damage caused by the cat to the house or grounds as soon as possible. b. Regularly cleaning any cat fouling from the grounds and the house. c. Monitoring the animal and the property regularly for the presence of fleas and arranging flea treatment for the animal and property as may be necessary to maintain the property in a flea free condition. The tenancy agreement also required that at the end of the tenancy, if the carpets were found to be below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy the tenant: d. Have the premises or chattels deodorised as required to remove the smells or odours or treat fleas; and e. The tenants may be liable for the costs of any additional services required to remove the smell of urine or odours or treat the premises and/or chattels on the premises for fleas as required, so that the premises meet the standard of ‘reasonably clean and tidy’.
The landlord claims that during the course of the tenancy the tenant was found to be breaching the pet clause. a. During a routine inspection on 27 May 2025 10 cats were found to be living at the property. The landlord recorded in the inspection report that significant cat fouling was observed coupled with a pervasive smell of cat urine. b. On 30 May 2025, a 14-day breach notice was issued requiring the tenant to remove eight cats and professionally remedy the cat urine odour and fouling. c. On 6 June 2025, the tenant acknowledged, in a series of e-mails, breaching the conditions of her pet clause and said she would rehome eight of the cats, fix any wear and tear, and clean the floors in the property to remove cat urine and fouling. d. On 19 June 2025, the 14-day breach notice had not been remedied. Three cats were sighted at the property, the urine odour persisted and there was no evidence the property had been cleaned.
On 29 September 2025, the landlord completed the exit inspection and told the Tribunal they discovered severe urine saturation of the flooring and a flea infestation. The landlord arranged for a carpet cleaner to inspect the property and provided photographs taken by the contractor using black lights showing urine staining of the carpet. A quote to replace the carpet was also provided. That quote recorded that there was a strong unpleasant odour in the property, visible signs of cat urine in most rooms and evidence of fleas jumping onto the legs of the contractor.
The landlord provided an invoice from their carpet cleaning contractor which records the carpet was cleaned, deodorised and flea treated. The landlord said that this work was undertaken in an attempt to bring the carpet to a reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
After considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had identified the property smelt of cat urine and showed evidence of pet fouling during a routine inspection of the property and issued a 14-day breach notice on 30 May 2025. In their email of 6 June 2025 the tenant accepted liability for the cat fouling and urine odour but failed to remedy the breach. The landlord and their contractors have recorded evidence of a strong unpleasant odour in the property, evidence of cat urine in most rooms and evidence of a flea infestation following the end of the tenancy. On that basis the Tribunal finds it was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned, deodorised and flea treated. The amount claimed is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,795.00 after paying a contractor to remove and replace the carpet and underlay that was damaged by pet urine during the tenancy after professional carpet cleaning and deodorisation failed to remove the odour. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
The landlord states they had to replace the carpet after professional carpet cleaning and deodorisation of the property failed to remove the ingrained pet urine odour. The landlord said they were unable to claim insurance as their insurance policy specifically excluded damage caused by domestic animals and their urine.
For the reasons outlined in paragraph [19] above the Tribunal is satisfied the carpet was damaged by cat urine during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the cat urine damage.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord told the Tribunal the carpet was new in 2018. The Tribunal considers carpet in a residential property generally has a life expectancy of around 10 years. Taking into account betterment and depreciation the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay compensation in the amount of $1,138.50. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368861 — Cleanliness at 44A Goodwin Drive, Rosehill, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368861 — Cleanliness at 44A Goodwin Drive, Rosehill, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to clean, deodorise, and flea treat the carpet?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to clean, deodorise, and flea treat the carpet?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions