What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386242 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 5386242?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386242 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 5386242?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Pottery Crescent, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5386242 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Saville & Veena Marguis $557.00 immediately, as a contribution toward the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The bond has been apportioned as agreed between the parties and no order about the bond is needed.
This application is brought by the landlord seeking compensation for the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises. Background
The tenancy began on 27 November 2021 and ended on 19 September 2025.
The agreement provided that the tenant could have a cat.
When the tenancy ended, the tenant agreed that the cost of having the carpets professionally cleaned could be paid from his bond.
After that, he was told by the property manager that the carpet treatment seemed to have worked.
The property manager days however that when viewings were held, they were told by prospective tenants that the odour from cat urine was not acceptable and the decision was made to replace the carpets.
The cost, proven by the invoice provided, was $5,290.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

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. 1
The tenant says he was told the previous tenant had a dog living there, which the property manager says is not correct. Whether that s the case or not, the tenant acknowledges that there were no concerns about the state of the carpets when the tenancy began.
Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show marks and staining that I find proved, more likely than not, to have occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant asks why the carpets needed to be replaced when he has told, after they had been commercially treated, that they seemed OK.
The landlord’s evidence about continuing issues with the carpet after the professional treatment is corroborated to some degree by photographs taken when the carpets were being lifted, after the commercial cleaning, which show urine staining through into the underlay. The property manager has given direct evidence of the extent of the odours that remained after the cleaning had been done.
I find it proved on balance that the extent of the damage to the carpets during the tenancy, meant that they needed to be replaced.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the loss caused.

What compensation should be awarded?

1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

In assessing the landlord’s loss, allowance needs to be made for depreciation. The landlord is entitled to be put in the position they would have been but for the damage, not to be better off.
The evidence is that at the end of the tenancy, the carpets were around 8 years old. IRD depreciation tables give an expected useful life for carpets in residential rental properties, of 8 years.
Therefore, by the end of the tenancy these carpets were at the end of their expected useful life,
I accept thought, that but for the damage, the landlord may not have needed to replace them, so they had some continued utility value, despite their age.
I find that a contribution by the tenant equal to 10% of their replacement cost (or looked at another way to compensate for use of money loss @10% per annum for having had to pay for replacement of the carpets perhaps a year earlier than might otherwise have been necessary) would be fair.
Generally, a party who has had a claim upheld is reimbursed the filing fee. It seems to me that in this case, had the claim only been for that contribution rather than the whole of the carpet replacement cost, this hearing may well have been unnecessary. No order is made about the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Saville & Veena Marguis $557.00 immediately, as a contribution toward the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The bond has been apportioned as agreed between the parties and no order about the bond is needed.
This application is brought by the landlord seeking compensation for the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises. Background
The tenancy began on 27 November 2021 and ended on 19 September 2025.
The agreement provided that the tenant could have a cat.
When the tenancy ended, the tenant agreed that the cost of having the carpets professionally cleaned could be paid from his bond.
After that, he was told by the property manager that the carpet treatment seemed to have worked.
The property manager days however that when viewings were held, they were told by prospective tenants that the odour from cat urine was not acceptable and the decision was made to replace the carpets.
The cost, proven by the invoice provided, was $5,290.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

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. 1
The tenant says he was told the previous tenant had a dog living there, which the property manager says is not correct. Whether that s the case or not, the tenant acknowledges that there were no concerns about the state of the carpets when the tenancy began.
Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show marks and staining that I find proved, more likely than not, to have occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant asks why the carpets needed to be replaced when he has told, after they had been commercially treated, that they seemed OK.
The landlord’s evidence about continuing issues with the carpet after the professional treatment is corroborated to some degree by photographs taken when the carpets were being lifted, after the commercial cleaning, which show urine staining through into the underlay. The property manager has given direct evidence of the extent of the odours that remained after the cleaning had been done.
I find it proved on balance that the extent of the damage to the carpets during the tenancy, meant that they needed to be replaced.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the loss caused.

What compensation should be awarded?

1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

In assessing the landlord’s loss, allowance needs to be made for depreciation. The landlord is entitled to be put in the position they would have been but for the damage, not to be better off.
The evidence is that at the end of the tenancy, the carpets were around 8 years old. IRD depreciation tables give an expected useful life for carpets in residential rental properties, of 8 years.
Therefore, by the end of the tenancy these carpets were at the end of their expected useful life,
I accept thought, that but for the damage, the landlord may not have needed to replace them, so they had some continued utility value, despite their age.
I find that a contribution by the tenant equal to 10% of their replacement cost (or looked at another way to compensate for use of money loss @10% per annum for having had to pay for replacement of the carpets perhaps a year earlier than might otherwise have been necessary) would be fair.
Generally, a party who has had a claim upheld is reimbursed the filing fee. It seems to me that in this case, had the claim only been for that contribution rather than the whole of the carpet replacement cost, this hearing may well have been unnecessary. No order is made about the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386242 — Cleanliness at 4 Pottery Crescent, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386242 — Cleanliness at 4 Pottery Crescent, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions