How much money was awarded in case 5391341?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,160.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391341?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159547-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5391341?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,160.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391341?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159547-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

138 Larnach Road, Waverley, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391341 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391341 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391341 — net $1,478.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 June 2025	$1,160.71	Rent arrears (to 4 June 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$290.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,478.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,478.71

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] to pay Wgr Property Management Limited As The Agent For Tiny Macro Ltd $1,478.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,478.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wgr Property Management Limited As The Agent For Tiny Macro Ltd immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6.29 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 18 November 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Richard Thompson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. 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. Background of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2020 with the fixed term ending on 28 February 2021. There after the tenancy became periodic.

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,160.71.

The tenant did not dispute the amount owed and told the Tribunal she had already agreed to the bond being released to cover the rent arrears.

The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

If a landlord seeks compensation for damage to a property, the 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 seeks compensation for carpet cleaning totalling $1,290.00. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided. The invoice specifies the costs as being: a. Carpet cleaning 3 stage – powered upright extraction + oscillating rotary agitation + low moisture extraction - $252.17 + GST b. Stain and odour guarantee - $869.57 + GST

The landlord states that the carpet in front of the fire had a large stain that required remediation, and the house had a pungent pet urine smell that built up over time between 5 June 2025 to 26 June 2025 when the property was professionally carpet cleaned.

The landlord called Mr Peter Clinch, from Carpet Chemist, a professional carpet cleaner with 25 years’ experience to give evidence.

Mr Clinch gave evidence that he visited the property at the landlord’s request and noted a strong and significant smell of pet urine. Mr Clinch said he recommended the landlord replace the carpets, in line with standard industry guidelines. However, he also offered to clean the carpets and provide a conditional stain and odour guarantee for an additional cost. This meant he would return to the property to undertake any remedial cleaning following the first treatment.

Mr Clinch told the Tribunal that in his experience odours such as these build up over many months and could not be attributed to one or two episodes of an animal urinating inside a property.

The tenant accepted her children were responsible for a stain on the lounge carpet. The tenant said she hired a Rug Doctor and used it to clean the lounge and dining room carpet at the end of the tenancy to remove the stain and return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The tenant disputed the property smelt of pet urine. The tenant noted the following: a. She lived in the property with her house-trained adult cat and briefly with a kitten. Her cat did not urinate inside the property. b. For the five-year duration of her tenancy her landlord conducted routine three-monthly inspections. The most recent inspection was on 28 May 2025. At no point during her tenancy did the landlord notify her of an issue with the property smelling of pet urine. c. The property was professionally cleaned on 3 June 2025, the cleaners did not notice a pet urine odour. d. Neither the tenant nor her partner were aware of a pet urine odour. e. There was a stray ginger cat hanging around the property. The tenant invited the Tribunal to consider that this cat may have been responsible for urinating inside the property. Analysis and decision

The Tribunal was provided with pre-tenancy inspection photographs and end of tenancy inspection photographs which prove the carpet was stained during the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to leave this area of carpet reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and the landlord is entitled to compensation for carpet cleaning costs to that area.

The Tribunal has heard that the property had a pet urine odour that built in strength between 5 June 2025 and 26 June 2025 when the carpet was professionally cleaned. The tenant gave evidence that after using a Rug Doctor to clean the carpet she left the windows of the property ajar for ventilation purposes. Both the landlord and tenant agree the windows were not open sufficiently to allow a cat to gain entry to the property. The Tribunal heard from Mr Clinch who gave evidence that in his opinion this pet urine odour was caused over several months through repeated spraying events. The Tribunal also heard that the dried urine crystals would have been activated by the use of a Rug Doctor and the pet urine smell would have been effected by the moisture, humidity, and ventilation of the property.

No evidence was provided by the tenant proving the pet urine damage was caused by the stray ginger cat. The tenant acknowledged sharing the property with her adult cat and a kitten. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds it more likely than not that the pet urine odour was caused by the tenant.

The Tribunal finds that the tenant is liable to pay for the cost of carpet cleaning the property. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is liable to pay for the stain and odour guarantee purchased by the landlord. The Tribunal heard the carpet was at least five years old and had been in the property prior to the tenant moving it. Mr Clinch had recommended the carpet be replaced given the smell. The landlords chose to clean the carpets and pay for a limited guarantee despite the professional advice the carpet needed replacing. On that basis the Tribunal orders carpet cleaning costs totalling $290.00. The Tribunal declines to award the cost of the stain and odour guarantee. Other matters

Because Wgr Property Management Limited As The Agent For Tiny Macro Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.

The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391341 — net $1,478.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 June 2025	$1,160.71	Rent arrears (to 4 June 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$290.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,478.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,478.71

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] to pay Wgr Property Management Limited As The Agent For Tiny Macro Ltd $1,478.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 18 November 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Richard Thompson, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. 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.

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.

The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2020 with the fixed term ending on 28 February 2021. There after the tenancy became periodic.

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,160.71.

The tenant did not dispute the amount owed and told the Tribunal she had already agreed to the bond being released to cover the rent arrears.

The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord called Mr Peter Clinch, from Carpet Chemist, a professional carpet cleaner with 25 years’ experience to give evidence.

Mr Clinch told the Tribunal that in his experience odours such as these build up over many months and could not be attributed to one or two episodes of an animal urinating inside a property.

Because Wgr Property Management Limited As The Agent For Tiny Macro Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord has been substantially successful but did not seek name suppression.

The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391341 — Rent arrears at 138 Larnach Road, Waverley, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391341 — Rent arrears at 138 Larnach Road, Waverley, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions