What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432953 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5432953?

Cleaning: $871.09 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13876637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432953 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5432953?

Cleaning: $871.09 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13876637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432953 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432953 — net $1,399.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$871.09	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	sful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 11 Suppression
Net award	$1,399.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,399.09

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432953 — net $1,399.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$871.09	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	sful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 11 Suppression
Net award	$1,399.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,399.09

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details and the names of [Witness 1] and [Witness 2]
[The tenant/s] must pay Realty Focus Limited As Agent For Brad & Mel Wallace $1,399.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy started on 29 May 2025 and ended on 26 November 2025. The tenancy was for a six-month fixed term and was terminated by the landlord. The tenancy premises consisted of four bedrooms and a living and dining room area that was tiled.
Brinja Bell appeared as the property manager for the landlord.
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the carpet was damaged with pet urine stains and odour throughout the premises. The landlord says they tried to clean the carpet, but carpet replacement was required.
The tenants disputed the claim. The tenants were represented by Jennifer Spedding. Both tenants also gave evidence of the hearing.
Both parties provided documentary and oral evidence in relation to this claim. I have considered all the evidence, even if I have not referred to it in this decision. The claims
The landlord has applied for: a. compensation for carpet cleaning - $871.09, b. compensation for carpet replacement $8,689.81 (amended from the application at the hearing), c. compensation being rent relief paid to subsequent tenant - $900, d. payment of the bond, (the bond however has been paid to the tenant; therefore, I am dismissing the claim for payment of the bond as I cannot make any order in respect of it, now that it is not held by the Bond centre. e. reimbursement of the filing fee.
The issue I must determine is whether the tenant is responsible for the cleaning and damage to the carpet and if so, what is the remedy? Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , in practical terms this means that: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. ... “[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.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 2
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 4
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5
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). 6 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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
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 2 RTA, 40(1)(e). 3 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 4 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 7 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 8 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). responsible for. 9 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. 10 The landlord’s position
The landlord says that the carpet was damaged after a viewing was conducted on 2 October 2025 and the tenants vacated on 24 November 2025. The landlord says that when the tenants vacated, and a final inspection was undertaken an issue with a urine smell was discovered and it was overpowering. Some pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were taken to show stains, but the landlord did not provide pre-tenancy photographs of the carpet throughout or the stains throughout the premises post-tenancy.
The landlord arranged for the carpet to be cleaned by Chem Dry.
The landlord says the urine had seeped into the underlay and the carpet cleaning was unsuccessful and carpet replacement was required.
The landlord provided email evidence from the subsequent tenants who raised a complaint about the smell in the premises from the outset of their tenancy.
A written statement from the owner dated 8 June 2026 was provided stating the detrimental impact this matter has had on them.
The landlord provided an email from Paul Mailman the manager of Carpet Court.
Mr Mailman said that there was extensive staining in the property from pet damage, that the smell was still very evident even after the carpets were cleaned, showing that the urine damage was substantial and embedded in the underlay. Mr Mailman also said there was some coloured stains as well, but the pet damage resulted in the full house carpet replacement. Mr Mailman confirmed that the owners paid $500 plus $8,189.81 towards the total flooring replacement of $16,085.98. Mr Mailman also estimated the age of the carpet to be 8 years based on the style and wear of the product.
The tenants had the carpet cleaned by Superior Steam and Dry Limited. The invoice for $345 dated 24 November 2025 records that carpet cleaning, deodorisation, pet odour removal, sanitisation and stain removal was completed. Richard Massey was the technician. Ms Bell emailed Mr Massey for him to advise his thoughts and opinions on the state of the carpet when he undertook the cleaning for the tenant. Mr Massey replied that he recalled the house and recalled walking through and all that he could smell was urine in every room along with stains. Mr Massey says that he told the tenant that he 9 RTA s 49B(1). 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. could not get the urine out and cleaning would not rectify the issue. He says he was advised to proceed in any event. The email says a full replacement of the carpet to the entire house was the only way to solve the issue.
With both parties’ agreement, Mr Massey was called to give evidence at the hearing.
Mr Massey could not recall speaking to the tenant in April 2026 (as referred to below under tenant’s position) but says that they receive a lot of phone calls.
Mr Massey confirmed his email evidence. Mr Massey provided unequivocal evidence that he was called to do the carpet cleaning, that when he arrived, he could smell urine in every room and there were stains everywhere and that these stains and odour would not come out with a clean as cleaning must happen within 48 hours of the pet urinating on the carpet, but he was told to proceed with the job. Mr Massey said it was probably the biggest treatment he has done in twenty years.
The landlord provided the Chemdry report dated 2 December 2026 which records that carpet was cleaned in 4 bedrooms, the hallway, the large lounge and separate bedroom. On that date the report says there is a strong pet urine smell in the master bedroom, lounge and family room.
The landlord also called one witness, a neighbour, [Witness 1] (AL). AL gave evidence (in summary) that she was aware that there were five cats at the property and that she had a discussion with [Tenant 1] about the tenants having to have the carpet cleaned and that [Tenant 1] was concerned about her bond refund.
Ms Bell also confirmed that she had attended at the property after the tenancy ended and a number of times after the commencement of the subsequent tenancy and confirmed that she could smell urine throughout the premises when she inspected the property. The tenant’s position
The tenants deny causing pet urine damage and deny liability for compensation claims. The tenants say that any damage to the carpet is the result of fair wear and tear.
The tenants said they had two cats that were both fully house trained at the time the alleged damage is said to have occurred.
The tenants say that any accidents caused by either children or their cats early in the tenancy were cleaned and did not result in the alleged damage.
The tenants suggest that the subsequent tenants concern with odour could have been the result of two sets of carpet cleaning being undertaken near and after their tenancy ended, and the property not being ventilated afterwards.
[Tenant 2] says that she talked to Mr Massey in April 2026 to discuss the carpet, and he said that he could not remember the job and he does hundreds of jobs and that he said that a smell could develop if a house was left locked after cleaning or there a chemical reaction may arise of the property was re- cleaned. [Tenant 1] said Mr Massey did not raise a concern about the carpet when he cleaned it and if he had she would not have paid for it to be cleaned.
The tenants say Mr Massey’s evidence should not be relied on given he could not recall the property when [Tenant 2] phoned in April 2026, so they query how he could then recall it in June 2026.
The tenants raise a concern that they did not have sufficient the opportunity assess the carpet themselves after the end of the tenancy and that the landlord did not allow them the option of assessing whether the issue could be rectified in any way other than total replacement of the carpet.
The tenant’s disputed having five cats at the property at any time and [Tenant 1] denied having a discussion with AL about her bond.
The tenants suggested that the previous occupants of the property may have had pets and suggested, as I understand it, that the carpet cleaning may have reacted with historical pet urine in the carpet, resulting in the odour that was present after their tenancy ended.
The tenants filed evidence from Reddit in relation to the property manager. As I indicated in the hearing, I consider that evidence to have little relevance to the claim.
[Witness 2] (CP) gave evidence in support of the tenants. She is the aunty to [Tenant 2]. CP provided a written statement dated 30 June 2026 and oral evidence that the hearing. CP said in her written statement that she was a regular visitor to the premises and was present on the day the tenants moved out, on 21 November 2025. CP said that at no time during her visits to the premises was there an odour of cat urine or evidence of cats urinating inside the house. CP says on 21 November 2025 the house was clean and tidy and there was no odour from cat urine. CP also spoke about a conversation she had with a vet about pet urine reacting with chemicals. As I indicated at the hearing this is hearsay evidence and I give that evidence little weight. CP did not herself have expertise in the area of chemical reactions with pet urine.
In summary, the tenant’s dispute causing damage and dispute the amount claimed. Findings
I have considered all the evidence, and I consider it more likely than not that this carpet was damaged in the master bedroom, lounge and family room with pet urine between the period commencing 2 October 2025 and the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not raise a concern about urine damage or an odour during this tenancy. I therefore consider it more likely than not that the carpet was damaged during this tenancy after 2 October 2025.
I am persuaded by the evidence from Mr Massey in respect of the extent of the odour and staining. I accept that Mr Massey may have advised the tenant by phone that he could not recall the premises. I also accept Mr Massey’s position that at the time he could not recall the premises, however on receipt of an email from the landlord it appears he considered the matter further and was able to provide an accurate position in relation to the state of the carpet in the premises.
Mr Massey was credible and persuasive. Further, I prefer Mr Massey’s evidence on balance to that of CP, given family members naturally will support a person they are related to.
However, I need to consider the extent of the damage, that is what rooms were damaged.
The subsequent tenant’s name was redacted from the emails submitted by the landlord, and they did not attend the hearing to give evidence, while I accept from the landlord’s evidence that persistent concerns about the odour were raised by them, in the absence of direct evidence from them, I am not satisfied that there was an ongoing odour issue in every room throughout the premises.
I also consider that the photographs provided by the landlord show that there was staining on the carpet in some rooms following it being cleaned. The tenant provided photographs to show that there was no staining at the end of the tenancy, but as I indicated at the hearing, I could see a discolouration in the carpet where the landlord says there is urine stains.
The Chem dry report of 2 December 2025 was completed after Mr Massey attended at the property and says the strong pet urine smell was in the master bedroom, lounge and family room. In addition, photographs have only been provided of stains in three areas and not the smaller bedrooms. I consider the landlord has not proven that the 3 smaller bedrooms required carpet replacement. While I accept that initially the smell was strong before cleaning (as evidenced by Mr Massey), there is insufficient corroborating documentary evidence that this persisted throughout the premises in all bedrooms after the two carpet cleans were undertaken. In addition, as I note below, I consider the issues arising with the insurance claim create a level of uncertainty about the numbers of rooms that were damaged.
The remaining damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage likely to be intentional in that the tenants were likely aware that in a short period of time their cats were repeatedly causing urine damage to the carpet, and they did not take steps to prevent the damage from occurring or clean it promptly to mitigate the damage.
The landlord had the carpets cleaned, which is the appropriate first step to remedying carpet damage. I find the tenant is responsible for the chem dry fee of $871.09.
The flooring replacement total cost was $16,085.98. The landlord was required to pay a $500 excess and $8,189.81 towards the carpet replacement. The landlord claimed from the tenant $8,689.81. The landlord said the carpet replacement was like-for-like.
The landlord has however, not provided the insurance assessment, the letter of acceptance of the claim or explained why the landlord was required to pay a customer portion towards the carpet replacement. I am left unclear as to whether there is a limit on the amount that could be claimed or the insurer considered that part of the carpet was not damaged and did not accept that full carpet replacement was required throughout. The later position aligns with the chem dry report which did not record the 3 smaller bedrooms as having a strong pet urine smell. While I note the landlord said there were stains throughout the premises and black light assessment was undertaken to show that there were urine deposits throughout, photographs of all the rooms and the assessment were not submitted in evidence.
There is a further issue, in that the email from Mr Mailman (Carpet Court) says that the carpet replacement was required throughout the house, the quote was for full replacement and the invoice says that carpet was replaced in the master bedroom, living room and 1 kids’ bedroom. The invoice and Mr Mailman’s email do not itemise the costs for carpet replacement in each room and state what was covered by insurance and what was not.
On reviewing this information, I consider I can only find the tenant liable for the insurance excess in relation to damage but not the balance of the carpet replacement. In the absence of further information about the customer portion paid for the carpet and why the tenant should be liable for that particular amount, there is too much uncertainty in my view, and it appears possible that the insurance claim would have related to rooms where there were stains but that the customer portion relates to areas that were not damaged.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is liable for the customer portion of the Carpet Court invoice. The amount ordered is $500 and the balance of the claim is dismissed.
I decline to award the $900 claimed by the landlord being rent relief paid to the subsequent tenants because the landlord has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to show that the subsequent tenants were paying that rent, that compensation was paid to them. Accordingly, the claim for compensation for the rent relief paid to the subsequent tenant is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee of $28. 11 Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 12
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 13
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression. They are concerned about reputational damage. Because the tenants have been substantially successful in defending the claim, they are entitled to name suppression, and it is ordered.
I am also suppressing the names of the non-professional witnesses, as there is no public interest in publication of their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432953 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432953 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions