What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371102 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 5371102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371102?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13012806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371102 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 5371102?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371102?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13012806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371102 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenants have damaged the carpet and claims the cost of replacement carpet of $4,870.00.

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.
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs and inspection reports from the beginning of the tenancy, and copies of photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says that during the tenancy the carpets were stained, and had deteriorated to such a condition that they needed replacement.
The tenants say that the carpets were old and at the end of their lifespan, already stained at the beginning of the tenancy, and that they commercially cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy which removed any stains that they had caused.
Having considered all the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants caused damage to the carpet necessitating the carpet change. I say this for reasons that include: a. The ingoing inspection report is comprehensive and shows staining and discolouration on the carpet in the ground floor bedroom, sun damage and staining in the sitting room and staining and wear in the lounge room particularly where the carpet meets the tiles in the entrance way. Almost all of the staining in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy are similar to or in the same places as the existing staining in the inspection report. b. The carpet is aged between 15-16 years. It is a good quality carpet, but nevertheless it is at the end of its useful lifespan. The IRD Depreciation schedule 265 published on July 2025 records that carpet in a residential tenancy has a useful lifespan of between 5-8 years unless it is modular nylon tile construction. This carpet was not a modular nylon tile construction, so it is well beyond its useful lifespan in the depreciation schedule. The condition of the carpet in the photographs was as expected for its age and therefore I am satisfied that the carpet had no depreciable value at the end of tenancy and was due for replacement due to age and normal wear and tear. c. Any staining or wear that occurred during the tenancy, I consider as a natural consequence of using the property. There were no noticeable stains from careless use, such as a makeup stain, or food staining that were caused by the tenants.
As the tenant has been successful in defending the claim, and has asked for suppression, I grant the tenants name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord claims that the tenants have damaged the carpet and claims the cost of replacement carpet of $4,870.00.

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.

Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs and inspection reports from the beginning of the tenancy, and copies of photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord says that during the tenancy the carpets were stained, and had deteriorated to such a condition that they needed replacement.

The tenants say that the carpets were old and at the end of their lifespan, already stained at the beginning of the tenancy, and that they commercially cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy which removed any stains that they had caused.

Having considered all the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants caused damage to the carpet necessitating the carpet change. I say this for reasons that include: a. The ingoing inspection report is comprehensive and shows staining and discolouration on the carpet in the ground floor bedroom, sun damage and staining in the sitting room and staining and wear in the lounge room particularly where the carpet meets the tiles in the entrance way. Almost all of the staining in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy are similar to or in the same places as the existing staining in the inspection report. b. The carpet is aged between 15-16 years. It is a good quality carpet, but nevertheless it is at the end of its useful lifespan. The IRD Depreciation schedule 265 published on July 2025 records that carpet in a residential tenancy has a useful lifespan of between 5-8 years unless it is modular nylon tile construction. This carpet was not a modular nylon tile construction, so it is well beyond its useful lifespan in the depreciation schedule. The condition of the carpet in the photographs was as expected for its age and therefore I am satisfied that the carpet had no depreciable value at the end of tenancy and was due for replacement due to age and normal wear and tear. c. Any staining or wear that occurred during the tenancy, I consider as a natural consequence of using the property. There were no noticeable stains from careless use, such as a makeup stain, or food staining that were caused by the tenants.

As the tenant has been successful in defending the claim, and has asked for suppression, I grant the tenants name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371102 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371102 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions