Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5396949 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 302, 30 Shortfin Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019
Decided 11 Feb 2026 · Published 11 Feb 2026 · Application 5396949
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited T/A Inspire Property Management As Agent For John & Maree De Latour / Whistler Management Ltd $828.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,660.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Real Estate Limited T/A Inspire Property Management As Agent For John & Maree De Latour / Whistler Management Ltd: $828.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,832.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants have cross applied seeking a refund of the full bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background The tenancy started on 17/3/2023 and ended on 4/10/2025. The landlord claim relates to carpet replacement in two bedrooms. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
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, including the carpets in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- Despite having the carpets professionally cleaned the evidence confirms that in 2 bedrooms the carpet remained reasonably extensively stained.
- The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $400 per claim. The insurance company approved the landlords claim for replacement of the carpet, based on a quotation from a carpet installer, of $855 per room.
- The landlord is “out of pocket” for the 2 insurance excesses ($800), as the carpets has been or is to be replaced in accordance with the quotation price, and has applied to the Tribunal seeking an order that the tenant pay the $800 from the bond.
- The tenant argues that the staining was not sufficient to warrant the landlord having the carpets replaced (or that the carpets were reasonably clean despite the stains) and alternatively that the staining was fair wear and tear over the duration of the tenancy.
- I do not agree with either of the tenant’s submission.
- The evidence establishes that the staining in both rooms was scattered throughout the carpet in each room. In bedroom 1 there was a large orange stain and 6 more minor (but still evident) pinkish coloured stains. In bedroom 2 there was 3 orangeish stains (about the size of a monetary note) and 6 others that were orangish brown and about half the size of a shoe.
- The report from the carpet cleaner that the tenants had asked to try and remove the stains, confirms that despite commercial cleaning and stain removal the stains in both bedrooms could not be removed.
- The assessor for the landlord’s insurance company NZI has confirmed in accepting the claim that the damage is “material” and sufficient to warrant replacement in both rooms.
- I agree that the number and extent of the stains is sufficient that replacement was the appropriate remedy. In doing so I note that the landlord has not claimed for replacement of the carpet in the living area as the small stain remaining in that room after professional treatment did not suggest replacement was appropriate. Had I been asked to determine a claim for replacement of the living area carpet, I would also have found that the stain could fairly be attributed to fair wear and tear. One smallish stain in a 2 ½ year tenancy could fairly be categorised that way. The more extensive staining in the bedrooms cannot.
- If the landlord were claiming the full cost of replacing the carpet of $855 per room, then 25% depreciation (accepting the carpet has an expected life span of 10 years) would be applied which would equate to an award of $633.75 per room. The tenant is entitled to the benefit of the landlord’s insurance and so the excess only is awarded as it is less than the depreciated value of the carpets.
- In summary the landlord has proven that the staining/damage to the carpets occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
- The tenants have not established that they did not carelessly cause or permit the damage. The nature and extent of the staining preclude that finding.
- Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. This section is relevant as it is likely at least some of the stains were caused by the tenants’ two children.
- As the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the insurance excess as this is less than both four weeks' rent and the depreciated value of the carpets.
- I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. I have therefore taken into account betterment and depreciation. As explained, the excess the tenants must pay is lower than the depreciated value of the carpet in each room.
- I am also now satisfied that the landlord has actually incurred the $800 cost as the carpet has now been replaced in accordance with the quotation.
- I accept that at the time of the hearing the property manager genuinely thought the work had been completed, when he gave evidence. He said that the work had been approved, however he also said the timing of the work was to be arranged between the carpet installers and the new tenants.
- When asked to provide evidence to confirm the installation, he confirmed the work had been delayed and then that it has now occurred. Issuing this decision was therefore delayed until that confirmation had been provided.
- Because Inspire Real Estate Limited T/A Inspire Property Management As Agent For John & Maree De Latour / Whistler Management Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. I decline the tenants request for filing fee reimbursement, as they are not successful.
- I have approved the tenants’ request for name suppression. The landlord did not oppose name suppression for the tenants, and as the tenants’ bond has more than covered what they owe there is therefore negligible public interest in publishing their names.