What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418053?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418053?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13171076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418053?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418053?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13171076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Bluff Road, Pokeno, RD 1, Pokeno 2471 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418053 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 February 2026.

The landlord seeks carpet replacement costs under these stated grounds on the application: “Since the end of Renee's tenancy, I have had to replace the porch flooring with an insurance accepted claim and recovered the excess from the Tribunal order and now I have to replace all the carpeting, 3 bedrooms, hallway and living rooms due to pet odor from the tenant keeping 3 dogs in the house contrary to her signed written agreement (this rental agreement has previously been submitted in the last hearing between Barfoot and Renee. In that hearing also in the exit inspection it was noted in court that dog hair was obviously present in several areas and it was stated that the carpet had not even been vacuumed as there was debris present. I had the carpets professionally cleaned before and after this tenancy. The rental agreement stipulated that Renee could have one small dog in the house as she promised and agreed by signature to professionally have the carpets cleaned which she failed to do. It was shown by photo evidence at that hearing she had allowed the 2 big dogs in the house and she admitted it justifying it by saying her daughter was home alone and felt threatened. Subsequently after Barfoot sent her violation notices to stop allowing the big dogs, a husky mix and a german shepherd, she completely abandoned any adherence to the rental agreement and kept the dogs in the house as she pleased and again blamed her teenage kids. However one of the dogs was visible from the driveway at the ranch slider even when no one was home on a Saturday. I know this has all been litigated at the previous hearing. My present complaint is the result of her dogs peeing on the carpet and/or leaving their smell embedded in the carpet and underlayment to such an extent that all attempts to air out the house and chemical deodorizers have failed to alleviate the smell. Over the last 3 months or so I have proceeded to file an insurance claim for complete removal and replacement of the carpet as the only solution to this problem. The smell has prevented me from renting the house as prospective tenants noticed this odor. In this lengthy process the insurance company have engaged a qualified adjuster to inspect the house and Flooring Xtra have done an onsite evaluation to replace all carpets and so finally this week the claim has been settled and funds have deposited into my account. However, their protocols insisted on each room being considered a separate claim and therefore I have had out of pocket expenses of $2500, being 5 areas previously mentioned at $500 excess per area.”

Under application numbers 5290579, 5303779 filed after the end of the tenancy in 2025, the landlord has previously applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for exit clean and carpet cleaning costs of $420.00, amongst other costs.

I have by order dated 29 August 2025 awarded the landlord the entire sum claimed of $420.00 for cleaning: including carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.

My order of 29 August 2025 was later subject to a rehearing application by the landlord in respect of the quantum of these awards in favour of the tenant: a. $740 for Compensation: cleaning to get rid of dog urine, to bring property to reasonably clean and tidy condition at start of tenancy; and b. $3,500 for Exemplary damages: issuance of retaliatory notice.

Upon considering the landlord’s rehearing application on 20 February 2026, I partially allowed the landlord’s application for rehearing and replaced the Order of 29 August 2025 with a decreased award of compensation and exemplary damages in favour of the tenant to the sum of $400 and $2,500 respectively.

There was no application for rehearing to do with the landlord’s application for cleaning and carpet cleaning costs of $420.00 which has been awarded in full to the landlord.

It is clear that the landlord’s new and current claim for carpet replacement costs before me today could have and should have been brought and advanced at the hearing before me in late 2025 under application number 5303779. The landlord filed this application to do with carpet replacement costs six months after the end of the tenancy on 27 July 2025.

There is public policy that the landlord’s current claim to do with carpet damage cannot be relitigated and added upon the previously adjudicated claims by the Tenancy Tribunal in August 2025.

The landlord’s claims before me are caught by the common law doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam, and its subset, issue estoppel.

Estoppel per rem judicatam prevents the relitigation of questions which have already been judicially determined. Where a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a New Zealand judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject-matter of any litigation, any party or privy to that litigation is estopped as against any other party or privy to the decision from disputing or questioning that decision on the merits in any subsequent litigation.

The doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam is commonly justified on two grounds. The first ground is that of public interest: it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation while the second ground is that of hardship on the individual: no one should be proceeded against twice for the same cause. Here, the same cause of action about the state of the carpet left behind by the tenant is being prosecuted against the tenant under the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

An estoppel which has come to be known as issue estoppel also arises where a plea of res judicata to a cause of action could not be established because the causes of action are not the same. Under issue estoppel, a party is precluded from contending the contrary of any precise point which, having once been distinctly put in issue, has been determined against that party even if the objects of the first and second actions are different. The matter must, however, have been directly at issue in the first action rather than collaterally or incidentally in issue. Here the claim for carpet damage and carpet replacement costs are directly at issue in the first action/claim on the state and cleanliness of the carpet left behind for which the landlord has sought and was awarded $420.00.

It is not in order for the landlord to return to the Tribunal to prosecute the same/similar claim based on the earlier cause of action and increase it.

As Adjudicator Hogan held in Nimmo Trustee Limited v Taylar Halliday [2020] NZTT Remote Location 4268541 at [45], there was obligation on the claimant to bring all claims that with reasonable diligence he could have filed at the file of the original/initial application. Two common law rules prevent a filing of related claims, being the rule against splitting causes of action which requires an applicant acting with reasonable diligence, to bring all their claims (and relevant points) arising out of the same nucleus of facts in the same civil proceeding and “issue estoppel”, which provides that if a previous issue has been decided against a party, that party is estopped from arguing the same issue again.

I find that issue estoppel applies to the landlord belated claim now pursued before me.

In any event, the carpets that are the subject matter of the landlord’s new claim is 9 years’ old and almost fully depreciated.

Further, the same carpet had been the subject of my 29 August 2025 decision awarding the tenant compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition where I ruled as follows:

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I accept that the landlord has engaged a professional cleaner to clean the premises prior to the tenant moving in.

However, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the carpet still smelt of dog urine and despite the tenant emailing the landlord’s previous property manager about this, the property manager did not send someone over to check on the tenant’s complaint.

At the very least, the property manager should have called at the premises to check the veracity of the tenant’s complaint himself and provide some form of objective response to the tenant’s claim of carpet having reeked of animal urine within a week of the commencement of the tenancy.

I find that the landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

I allow the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of cleaning costs incurred by the tenant at the start of the tenancy.

While I have subsequently reduced the tenant’s award to $400 for reasons set out in [5] and [6] above, my findings of liability against the landlord for failure to provide the same carpet in a reasonable state of cleanliness remains.

Considering depreciation and the original state of the carpet which smelt of dog urine at the start of the tenancy, it is unlikely that there can be any further compensation due to the landlord, even if the current claim can be re-litigated.

For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for carpet replacement costs must fail.

Reasons