What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399389 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 5399389?

E Tenants’ Names And Identifying Det…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399389 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 5399389?

E Tenants’ Names And Identifying Det…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399389 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399389. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pa	$28.00		e tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by property manager, Ms Tucker. Three tenants attended and had instructions to represent the fourth, Mr F.
The parties have been unable to agree on the release of the bond of $2640.00. The tenants seek a full refund. The landlord agrees to only a partial refund and seeks compensation of $681.38 to be paid from the bond. This relates to inspection and cleaning of the carpet as the result of odours.
The tenancy ended on 13 November 2025.
An exit inspection was conducted on Saturday 15 November. The tenants were asked to remedy some matters, not related to the carpet.
On Wednesday 19 November the tenant Ms M returned to the property to complete the remaining cleaning/tidying tasks and sent photos to the property manager.
On Friday 21 November Ms Tucker returned and noticed a smell of animal urine. She organised a carpet cleaner to inspect the carpet and propose solutions. She provided a copy of an email from Mr Doull of Gold Carpet Cleaning in which he reported: I inspected the carpet at [the tenancy], on November 24, 2025. The survey revealed pet urine in the carpet in: the middle bedroom, hallway and living room. Staining was visible on the carpet backing and on the lounge underlay. There is a smell throughout the house and there are quite possibly areas of pet urine in the other rooms that we not able to detect.
He recommended replacement of the carpet.
In fact, the owners decided to proceed with a professional clean.
The cost of the assessment, including lifting and relaying the carpet was $393.88. The cost of cleaning was $287.50.
The questions to determine are: a. Did the carpet smell? b. Are the tenants responsible for the smell in the carpet? c. If so, are the costs claimed reasonable.
The onus of proof rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Did the carpet smell?

Ms Tucker says when she undertook the inspection on 15 November, she did not notice a smell, but the tenants had left a deodorising automatic spray in the lounge. She removed that.
When she returned on 21 November, the smell was evident.
The tenants say that there was no smell at the end of the tenancy on 13 November, no complaint about a smell during any inspections, or in the exit inspection report of 15 November, and no smell when Ms M returned on 19 November, at which point the deodoriser had been gone for four days.
The evidence to support the claim that the carpet smelt was the report from Gold Carpet Cleaning and accompanying photographs showing stains on the underlay of the carpet in some rooms.
I find on the balance of probabilities that by 21 November 2025 when the property manager returned to the premises, the carpet smelt.

Are the tenants responsible?

The tenants had two dogs and a cat at the premises during the tenancy and so it is reasonable to assume that they were responsible for the smell.
To counter that, Ms M says: a. She was unaware of any toileting incidents from her pets. b. There were no complaints of smells during the tenancy inspections. c. There was no complaint of smell at the exit inspection. d. The deodoriser was placed as a courtesy, not to disguise urine smells. e. She did not smell urine when she returned on 19 November. f. There were cats in the area, including unneutered male cats. There was a broken cat door with the flap missing. When she returned to the premises on 19 November the door to the washhouse was open, meaning other cats could have come in and sprayed. g. The stains were found in the middle bedroom which was Mr B’s. He confirmed that none of the pets were allowed in his bedroom and he always had his door closed to prevent that. h. They had used a rug doctor before they left and it is possible that the moisture reactivated the urine crystals. i. Therefore the stains shown on the underlay in the middle bedroom may have predated the tenancy or have been caused by other cats. j. There are no photographs of the underlay or underside of the carpet at the start of the tenancy to make comparisons.
Although pets sometimes have accidents, it does not mean that all pets do so. There were no complaints of smells during any of the tenancy. It is unlikely that a deodorising smell in the lounge would have masked all smells, including in the middle bedroom.
Taking into account all of these factors I find that the landlord has not proved that the smells are more likely than not from the tenants’ pets. There are other possible explanations, including the reactivation of smells as a result of using a rug doctor and other cats coming into the property between the end of the tenancy and 21 November when Ms Tucker noticed the smells.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed and the full bond is to be refunded to the tenants.
Because the tenants have been successful, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is also granted to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399389. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pa	$28.00		e tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Homely Property Management Limited As Agents For Moose Holding Ltd. must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by property manager, Ms Tucker. Three tenants attended and had instructions to represent the fourth, Mr F.
The parties have been unable to agree on the release of the bond of $2640.00. The tenants seek a full refund. The landlord agrees to only a partial refund and seeks compensation of $681.38 to be paid from the bond. This relates to inspection and cleaning of the carpet as the result of odours.
The tenancy ended on 13 November 2025.
An exit inspection was conducted on Saturday 15 November. The tenants were asked to remedy some matters, not related to the carpet.
On Wednesday 19 November the tenant Ms M returned to the property to complete the remaining cleaning/tidying tasks and sent photos to the property manager.
On Friday 21 November Ms Tucker returned and noticed a smell of animal urine. She organised a carpet cleaner to inspect the carpet and propose solutions. She provided a copy of an email from Mr Doull of Gold Carpet Cleaning in which he reported: I inspected the carpet at [the tenancy], on November 24, 2025. The survey revealed pet urine in the carpet in: the middle bedroom, hallway and living room. Staining was visible on the carpet backing and on the lounge underlay. There is a smell throughout the house and there are quite possibly areas of pet urine in the other rooms that we not able to detect.
He recommended replacement of the carpet.
In fact, the owners decided to proceed with a professional clean.
The cost of the assessment, including lifting and relaying the carpet was $393.88. The cost of cleaning was $287.50.
The questions to determine are: a. Did the carpet smell? b. Are the tenants responsible for the smell in the carpet? c. If so, are the costs claimed reasonable.
The onus of proof rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Did the carpet smell?

Ms Tucker says when she undertook the inspection on 15 November, she did not notice a smell, but the tenants had left a deodorising automatic spray in the lounge. She removed that.
When she returned on 21 November, the smell was evident.
The tenants say that there was no smell at the end of the tenancy on 13 November, no complaint about a smell during any inspections, or in the exit inspection report of 15 November, and no smell when Ms M returned on 19 November, at which point the deodoriser had been gone for four days.
The evidence to support the claim that the carpet smelt was the report from Gold Carpet Cleaning and accompanying photographs showing stains on the underlay of the carpet in some rooms.
I find on the balance of probabilities that by 21 November 2025 when the property manager returned to the premises, the carpet smelt.

Are the tenants responsible?

The tenants had two dogs and a cat at the premises during the tenancy and so it is reasonable to assume that they were responsible for the smell.
To counter that, Ms M says: a. She was unaware of any toileting incidents from her pets. b. There were no complaints of smells during the tenancy inspections. c. There was no complaint of smell at the exit inspection. d. The deodoriser was placed as a courtesy, not to disguise urine smells. e. She did not smell urine when she returned on 19 November. f. There were cats in the area, including unneutered male cats. There was a broken cat door with the flap missing. When she returned to the premises on 19 November the door to the washhouse was open, meaning other cats could have come in and sprayed. g. The stains were found in the middle bedroom which was Mr B’s. He confirmed that none of the pets were allowed in his bedroom and he always had his door closed to prevent that. h. They had used a rug doctor before they left and it is possible that the moisture reactivated the urine crystals. i. Therefore the stains shown on the underlay in the middle bedroom may have predated the tenancy or have been caused by other cats. j. There are no photographs of the underlay or underside of the carpet at the start of the tenancy to make comparisons.
Although pets sometimes have accidents, it does not mean that all pets do so. There were no complaints of smells during any of the tenancy. It is unlikely that a deodorising smell in the lounge would have masked all smells, including in the middle bedroom.
Taking into account all of these factors I find that the landlord has not proved that the smells are more likely than not from the tenants’ pets. There are other possible explanations, including the reactivation of smells as a result of using a rug doctor and other cats coming into the property between the end of the tenancy and 21 November when Ms Tucker noticed the smells.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed and the full bond is to be refunded to the tenants.
Because the tenants have been successful, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is also granted to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399389 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399389 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the carpet smell?

Are the tenants responsible?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the carpet smell?

Are the tenants responsible?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions