Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436704 — Cleanliness at Flat 5, 94 Mathesons Road, Phillipstown, Christchurch
Decided 26 May 2026 · Published 26 May 2026 · Application 5436704
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenant’s names and identifying details must not be published.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) Opes Property Management South Limited as agent for Perano Blue Limited, Ollie McKenna, immediately.
- The tenants are not liable for the $148.00 balance set out below.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
- Two of the tenants attended.
- Rahul Negi attended for the landlord.
- The landlord applied compensation for insurance excesses for replacing carpet due to extensive cat urine throughout the house, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?
- At the end of the tenancy, Mr Negi discovered the house stank of cat urine. He instructed an expert carpet cleaning contractor, Extreme Carpet Cleaning that reported that: The inspection identified extensive urine contamination throughout multiple areas of the property, affecting all rooms inspected. Both UV inspection and specialised urine detection equipment confirmed widespread contamination consistent with repeated urine deposits.
- The tenants accepted their cat had urinated on the carpets in four areas but not in the second bedroom because the cat was not allowed into that room.
- The tenants disputed that the contractor’s photographs which had ultraviolet lit images depicted Bedroom 2. The Tribunal heard evidence by telephone from Eamonn Ford the contractor who submitted the report. He said that while it had been more than four months since he carried out the inspection, he believed that Bedroom 2 was affected by urine deposits.
- While the tenants were adamant the cat had not been allowed in Bedroom 2, they were overseas for three weeks and a friend had stayed in the premises and looked after the cat while they were away. Therefore, it is possible that their friend failed to keep the bedroom door closed with the unfortunate consequence the contractor detected.
- It is probable Mr Ford would have noted if an entire room were not affected by urine because that would save the landlord from having to replace the carpet.
- For these reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cat urinated in Bedroom 2 damaging the carpet.
- The carpets were new at the beginning of the tenancy but had to be replaced a year later when the tenancy ended. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the tenants prudently ensured the cat did not urinate in many parts of the house including bedroom 2. In other words, I am not satisfied the tenants were not careless in connection with their cat’s despoiling the carpets.
- I find the tenants liable for the cost of replacing the carpets.
- The landlord’s insurer covered the cost of replacing the carpets less five excesses of $500.00 for each “event”, which the insurer attributed to five separate contaminated rooms or areas.
- The tenants are liable for $2,500.00.
- The tenants must pay the landlord’s application fee. However, there is a rent credit of $420.00.
- After the bond is paid over, the balance is $148.00. Mr Negi said because the tenants were good tenants, the landlord is content with an order only for the bond. Non-publication
- I have considered whether the Tribunal should order that the tenants’ names must not be published. They have not succeeded in their claim so s 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply. However, I consider that non-publication is in the public interest under s 95A(4) because the tenants brought their claim on genuine grounds. The tenants will have learnt from this experience and will ensure these events are not repeated. Mr Negi confirms they were good tenants so not publishing their names does not create a risk for prospective landlords.
- Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names must not be published.