What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438691 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6142702-015) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5438691?

Carpet Excess: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438691 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6142702-015) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5438691?

Carpet Excess: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Hillcrest Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438691 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438691. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet excess	$1,000.00		Carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared by video and the tenant appeared by telephone. 5438691 2

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties agreed that a part disbursement of bond has occurred to cover a pet bond for the tenant’s new premises leaving a bond balance of $1680.00.

The claims for cleaning and gardening are dismissed because there was not enough evidence provided to establish these claims.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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 responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The claim made was that the carpet throughout the premises smelled like urine at the end of the tenancy. The property manager said at the final inspection she could smell a damp smell form the tenants carpet cleaning but not strong odour.

The tenancy ended after the Owner gave notice because she needed to move back into the premises. The landlord conducted a final inspection and asked the tenant to return to fix up some cleaning areas that the cleaner had missed. This was completed and a video sent to the landlord who approved the cleaning. 5438691 3

The landlord said that the Owner had moved back in the day the tenant moved out so the landlord did not have time to repeat her final inspection.

Two days after the tenancy ended, on 7 January 2026, the Owner contacted ‘Chemdry’ carpet cleaners seeking carpet cleaning because the house smelled like cat urine.

‘Chemdry’ attended the premises on 7 January 2026 noting in their report the ‘very strong smell lingered through the whole house’ and the carpet was treated for this on the same day.

Chemdry returned on 26 January 2026 to check if the treatment worked and their report noted that ‘straight away could smell it in the lounge it was pretty potent, definitely better after the clean…however the smell still remains quite strongly.’ …. the lounge is definitely recommended for carpet replacement’.

The landlord paid the insurance excess of $1000.00 as per the insurance policy provided and confirmation of payment. The landlord claims reimbursement of this excess from the tenant.

The tenant disputes this claim saying that she had rescue cats for 9 months and during that time she passed all her house inspections and has never been told that her house smelled.

She said the landlord moved into the premises and 42 days’ notice was given at Christmas time. This was very stressful for her and her dependants as many offices were shut and there were limited rental viewings at this time.

The tenant said that soon after the landlord moved in premises were redecorated and then sold in so she should have been given 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy and this extra time would have been beneficial to her and her family. She believes that it was never the landlords’ intention to live at the premises but to do it up and sell and that is why she replaced the lounge carpet because it was old and stained from before her tenancy started.

The property manager agreed that the carpet was old and stained at the start of the tenancy and said that even though she did not smell any urine at the end of the tenancy she left the assessment of the carpet damage to the experts as that was their job.

The property manager provided correspondence from the owner confirming it was never her intention to sell the premises and this happened due to a change in her circumstances.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. Likewise, if a party disputes a claim evidence is required to support their position. 5438691 4

The tenant has claimed that there was no smell issue, as per her passed inspections and that premises were quickly sold. No other evidence on this was produced.

The tenant raised that the Chemdry report was not to be trusted because it said there were no curtains at the premises which was wrong so they could not be trusted. In the lounge there were no curtains, but there were vertical and horizontal blinds. I do not find that this distinction invalidates the Chemdry report.

The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and undamaged at the end of the tenancy and the landlord has provided objective evidence by way of the Chemdry statements that there were unfixable issues with the smell of the carpet in the lounge.

Based on the evidence provided I find that the carpet in the lounge was carelessly damage during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The insurance excess is awarded as claimed.

Because Unique Realty Limited as The Agent for Laura Nottle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438691. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet excess	$1,000.00		Carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared by video and the tenant appeared by telephone. 5438691 2

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties agreed that a part disbursement of bond has occurred to cover a pet bond for the tenant’s new premises leaving a bond balance of $1680.00.

The claims for cleaning and gardening are dismissed because there was not enough evidence provided to establish these claims.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord said that the Owner had moved back in the day the tenant moved out so the landlord did not have time to repeat her final inspection.

Two days after the tenancy ended, on 7 January 2026, the Owner contacted ‘Chemdry’ carpet cleaners seeking carpet cleaning because the house smelled like cat urine.

‘Chemdry’ attended the premises on 7 January 2026 noting in their report the ‘very strong smell lingered through the whole house’ and the carpet was treated for this on the same day.

The landlord paid the insurance excess of $1000.00 as per the insurance policy provided and confirmation of payment. The landlord claims reimbursement of this excess from the tenant.

The tenant disputes this claim saying that she had rescue cats for 9 months and during that time she passed all her house inspections and has never been told that her house smelled.

The property manager provided correspondence from the owner confirming it was never her intention to sell the premises and this happened due to a change in her circumstances.

The tenant has claimed that there was no smell issue, as per her passed inspections and that premises were quickly sold. No other evidence on this was produced.

The insurance excess is awarded as claimed.

Because Unique Realty Limited as The Agent for Laura Nottle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438691 — Mould & damp at 12 Hillcrest Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438691 — Mould & damp at 12 Hillcrest Drive, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions