What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439577 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17153710) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5439577?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439577?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439577 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17153710) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5439577?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439577?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598669-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Huntly Avenue, Grafton, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439577 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17153710) immediately apportioned as follows: Wisechoice Rental Property Limited T/[The landlord/s]: $787.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,192.50 Attendance:
Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
This tenancy commenced on 19 October 2022 and concluded on 28 December 2025.
The tenant seeks the refund of the bond. The landlord seeks recovery of three insurance excesses of $500 each: two relating to replacement of carpet in the bedroom and lounge respectively, and a third relating to replacement of the benchtop. The landlord also seeks $287.50 for cleaning costs.

Is the Respondent liable for the carpet replacement and cleaning costs?

The tenant had a dog living at the property. The tenant also confirmed that the neighbour’s dog entered the property on multiple occasions. The tenant says the property was advertised as pet-friendly and that the landlord consented to the pets. The tenant therefore submits that pet odours in the property are reasonable and to be expected in a home where pets reside.
The landlord states that the property was not advertised as pet-friendly. While the landlord says they did not object to the dogs per se, they say they were entitled to have the property returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord says this required replacement of the carpet in the bedroom and lounge at the conclusion of the tenancy because they say pet urine seeped through to the underlay.
The landlord has relied on an accepted insurance claim as proof that pet urine had damaged the carpet. No further evidence except the presence of an odour noted in the exit inspection was offered. The landlord also seems to have accepted the state of the carpet albeit making note of the odour in the exit inspection until the new tenant complained.
The landlord has not met the burden of proving that replacement of the carpet was required because of the dogs. However, the evidence does establish that there was an extensive amount of dog hair throughout the property and a strong odour. Although the landlord complicated matters by failing to identify and address these issues prior to a new tenant entering the property, I am nevertheless satisfied on the evidence that substantial pet-related cleaning was reasonably required at the end of the tenancy.
Even where a property is pet-friendly, or where a landlord consents to pets being kept at the premises, a tenant remains responsible for returning the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A pet owner must reasonably expect that additional cleaning or deodorising may be required at the end of the tenancy. The Residential Tenancies Act contemplates this through mechanisms such as pet bonds. A landlord’s consent to pets does not mean the property may be returned with lingering pet odours.
If additional cleaning or deodorising is required as a result of pets, that responsibility falls on the tenant. I am satisfied on the evidence that the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I am also satisfied that additional cleaning was reasonably required to remove dog odours from the property, which the tenant does not substantially dispute.
Although I am not satisfied that carpet replacement is the tenant’s liability, I consider it appropriate in the circumstances that the tenant make a contribution towards returning the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state which would have reasonably be achieved through deodorising and carpet shampooing. I therefore award the landlord $500.00 in compensation for the breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii).

Is the Respondent liable for the cracked benchtop?

The landlord has provided a photograph showing a crack in the benchtop. The tenant contends that the damage is the result of poor construction. The landlord contends that the tenant is liable for the damage because it was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The crack appears to be located in a vulnerable area of the benchtop between the sink cut-outs, where the benchtop has been cut to accommodate the sink. Damage of this type is sometimes referred to as a “stress crack”.
Such damage is not the liability of the tenant. A tenant is entitled to make ordinary use of a benchtop and is only liable for the cost where their careless or intentional conduct has caused the damage. The landlord has not established that is what has occurred. The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Both parties have had some success and each will bear their own filing fee.
The request for suppression is declined. H Ben Fayed 14 May 2026

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17153710) immediately apportioned as follows: Wisechoice Rental Property Limited T/[The landlord/s]: $787.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,192.50 Attendance:
Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
This tenancy commenced on 19 October 2022 and concluded on 28 December 2025.
The tenant seeks the refund of the bond. The landlord seeks recovery of three insurance excesses of $500 each: two relating to replacement of carpet in the bedroom and lounge respectively, and a third relating to replacement of the benchtop. The landlord also seeks $287.50 for cleaning costs.

Is the Respondent liable for the carpet replacement and cleaning costs?

The tenant had a dog living at the property. The tenant also confirmed that the neighbour’s dog entered the property on multiple occasions. The tenant says the property was advertised as pet-friendly and that the landlord consented to the pets. The tenant therefore submits that pet odours in the property are reasonable and to be expected in a home where pets reside.
The landlord states that the property was not advertised as pet-friendly. While the landlord says they did not object to the dogs per se, they say they were entitled to have the property returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord says this required replacement of the carpet in the bedroom and lounge at the conclusion of the tenancy because they say pet urine seeped through to the underlay.
The landlord has relied on an accepted insurance claim as proof that pet urine had damaged the carpet. No further evidence except the presence of an odour noted in the exit inspection was offered. The landlord also seems to have accepted the state of the carpet albeit making note of the odour in the exit inspection until the new tenant complained.
The landlord has not met the burden of proving that replacement of the carpet was required because of the dogs. However, the evidence does establish that there was an extensive amount of dog hair throughout the property and a strong odour. Although the landlord complicated matters by failing to identify and address these issues prior to a new tenant entering the property, I am nevertheless satisfied on the evidence that substantial pet-related cleaning was reasonably required at the end of the tenancy.
Even where a property is pet-friendly, or where a landlord consents to pets being kept at the premises, a tenant remains responsible for returning the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A pet owner must reasonably expect that additional cleaning or deodorising may be required at the end of the tenancy. The Residential Tenancies Act contemplates this through mechanisms such as pet bonds. A landlord’s consent to pets does not mean the property may be returned with lingering pet odours.
If additional cleaning or deodorising is required as a result of pets, that responsibility falls on the tenant. I am satisfied on the evidence that the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I am also satisfied that additional cleaning was reasonably required to remove dog odours from the property, which the tenant does not substantially dispute.
Although I am not satisfied that carpet replacement is the tenant’s liability, I consider it appropriate in the circumstances that the tenant make a contribution towards returning the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state which would have reasonably be achieved through deodorising and carpet shampooing. I therefore award the landlord $500.00 in compensation for the breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii).

Is the Respondent liable for the cracked benchtop?

The landlord has provided a photograph showing a crack in the benchtop. The tenant contends that the damage is the result of poor construction. The landlord contends that the tenant is liable for the damage because it was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The crack appears to be located in a vulnerable area of the benchtop between the sink cut-outs, where the benchtop has been cut to accommodate the sink. Damage of this type is sometimes referred to as a “stress crack”.
Such damage is not the liability of the tenant. A tenant is entitled to make ordinary use of a benchtop and is only liable for the cost where their careless or intentional conduct has caused the damage. The landlord has not established that is what has occurred. The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
Both parties have had some success and each will bear their own filing fee.
The request for suppression is declined. H Ben Fayed 14 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439577 — Cleanliness at 8 Huntly Avenue, Grafton, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439577 — Cleanliness at 8 Huntly Avenue, Grafton, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the Respondent liable for the carpet replacement and cleaning costs?

Is the Respondent liable for the cracked benchtop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Is the Respondent liable for the carpet replacement and cleaning costs?

Is the Respondent liable for the cracked benchtop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions