What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451819 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5451819?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5451819 D…: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451819?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687090-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451819 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5451819?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5451819 D…: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451819?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687090-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451819 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5451819 — net $8,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5451819 dated 16/04/2026	$6,800.00	Previous order application 5451819 dated 16/04/2026
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,450.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,278.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,278.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
This order incorporates the order under this application number [2026] NZTT 5451819 dated 16 April 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $8,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both landlords and the tenant attended the remote hearing.
I made an order after a first hearing recording that the tenancy would end on 24 April 2026 and for rent arrears owing to that date. The first order dated 16 April 2026 is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlords seek compensation for damage to the carpet caused by two cats kept by the tenant. They claim the quoted cost of $4,153.17 to replace carpet in four bedrooms, the hallway and the stairs (all upstairs).
The tenant agrees there is some minor damage in a few places, but it is not widespread. He said he has offered the landlords what he thinks is reasonable compensation. He asks whether the landlords have explored other options such as professional cleaning or repair of pulled or scratched carpet fibres.
The tenant was permitted to keep a pet in the premises. The parties disagree as to whether the landlords agreed to one or two cats. There is no written record of this however the agreed number of pets does not materially affect my decision.

What is the law relating to damage to tenancy premises?

The relevant law in regard to damage to tenancy premises is that:- a. A landlord must first prove that any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. c. Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is no more than the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. d. 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. e. A tenant is 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. f. If damage is proven, the Tribunal aims to award compensation which will, as near as possible, return the landlord to the position they would have been in if there had not been careless or intentional damage. The landlord should not be better or worse off. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. g. Court decisions also make it clear that an assessment of loss must be based on what is reasonable. 1 The Tenancy Tribunal often applies this principle. For example, if a kitchen bench has a small chip or burn, it may not be reasonable to replace the whole bench. Similarly, where there is a small stain on carpet it is not usually reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room. Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlords for the full cost to replace the carpet in the premises?
The landlords did not initially provide photos taken at the final inspection after the tenancy ended. I allowed them to email new video and photo evidence during the hearing and heard oral evidence and submissions from both parties.
The landlords’ view is that the carpet was significantly damaged by scratching by the cats, stains and odour.
The parties agree the carpet was brand new at the start of this tenancy. The landlords first tried to clean the house themselves but then arranged for the house to be professionally cleaned. The same company also shampooed the carpet.
There is no evidence to show the condition of the carpet after it had been shampooed.
After reviewing all evidence, I accept that the landlords have proven that the below damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear:- a. Pulling of numerous carpet fibres on the front edges of all sixteen stairs (leading to the upstairs of the house); b. One area of pulled carpet fibres in the hallway outside a bedroom door (about 40cm diameter); c. Four small (about 3-5mm), bright ink stains in the second bedroom.
The video moves quickly through the bedrooms. I am not satisfied that there was extensive pulling of carpet fibres in any other room.
The landlords’ video shows a light yellow, moderately sized stain in the master bedroom. This is not proven to be permanent damage because there are no photos supplied from after the carpets had been cleaned.
The landlords point out that a written quote from a furnishing company to replace the carpet says that it has “... sustained significant damage and staining that cannot be effectively repaired or cleaned.” The quote goes on to say: 1 This principle comes from an English House of Lords decision called Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyh [1995] UKHL 8. Due to the extent of the damage, replacement of the affected carpet areas is required to restore the flooring to a functional and acceptable condition.
The concern I have about this evidence is that the furnishing company has a vested interest in recommending the carpet be replaced because it will gain business from that advice. It is not independent evidence. This is why evidence from a specialist carpet cleaning company or insurer is better.
I do not agree with the conclusion of the furnishing company that replacement of all the carpet in the house is required to return the flooring to a functional and acceptable condition.
The landlords also mentioned an odour in the house. My decision is that the evidence does not prove the carpet was damaged by odour. There is no supporting evidence about odour from the carpet cleaning company, an insurance company or any other source. The landlords’ oral evidence about the concerns of the current tenants was vague. They said the current tenants remain upset about cat hair, but it is unclear to me whether they have any other concern.
The landlords told me they contacted their insurer and were told that an excess of $750.00 per room would apply to any claim. They have not made an insurance claim.
The landlords explained that they have decided to replace all of the carpet because this was a brand-new property at the start of this tenancy (9 months ago) and they want to maintain a high standard of tenant and rental.
The carpet had not been replaced as at the date of the hearing, but the landlords said they had booked this to be done in the next few days. This means the landlords have not incurred any cost or loss yet.
I agree with the tenant that it is reasonable to expect the landlords to seek the advice of a specialist carpet cleaning and repair company before deciding to replace the carpet. Some odour and stains can be effectively treated or deodorised and there may also be repairs that could be done to small areas of pulled fibres (for example, trimming the pulled fibres or patching the carpet in these areas).
I understand the landlords’ concern to maintain a high standard in the premises. However, the reality is that there will be ongoing wear and tear including the possibility of future damage. It is not generally economic to replace flooring in tenanted premises unless damage is significant such as large, obvious stains, large tears or burns, strong odour affecting underlay and carpet.
My decisions about compensation for the proven damage are:- a. The extent of pulling or tearing of carpet fibres on the stairs mean it is reasonable to replace the carpet in this area. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume this damage is covered by the landlords’ insurance and award the maximum which is the amount of the excess of $750.00. b. The pulled carpet fibres in the hallway (outside the bedroom) do not justify replacing the carpet in the whole hallway. I award $350.00 to recognise a loss of value which is recognition that the carpet’s expected lifespan has been reduced. c. The three or four ink stains in the second bedroom are small so do not justify replacing the carpet in this whole room. I award $350.00 to recognise a loss of value.
The total awarded to the landlords in compensation for damage to the carpet is $1,450.00.
The claim is partly successful, so I also award the filing fee.
I suppress the landlords’ names to be consistent with my first order and because their application is substantially successful. The tenant’s name is not suppressed but I note his attendance at the hearings and willingness to meet his responsibilities.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5451819 — net $8,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5451819 dated 16/04/2026	$6,800.00	Previous order application 5451819 dated 16/04/2026
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,450.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,278.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,278.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
This order incorporates the order under this application number [2026] NZTT 5451819 dated 16 April 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $8,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both landlords and the tenant attended the remote hearing.
I made an order after a first hearing recording that the tenancy would end on 24 April 2026 and for rent arrears owing to that date. The first order dated 16 April 2026 is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlords seek compensation for damage to the carpet caused by two cats kept by the tenant. They claim the quoted cost of $4,153.17 to replace carpet in four bedrooms, the hallway and the stairs (all upstairs).
The tenant agrees there is some minor damage in a few places, but it is not widespread. He said he has offered the landlords what he thinks is reasonable compensation. He asks whether the landlords have explored other options such as professional cleaning or repair of pulled or scratched carpet fibres.
The tenant was permitted to keep a pet in the premises. The parties disagree as to whether the landlords agreed to one or two cats. There is no written record of this however the agreed number of pets does not materially affect my decision.

What is the law relating to damage to tenancy premises?

The relevant law in regard to damage to tenancy premises is that:- a. A landlord must first prove that any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. c. Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is no more than the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. d. 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. e. A tenant is 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. f. If damage is proven, the Tribunal aims to award compensation which will, as near as possible, return the landlord to the position they would have been in if there had not been careless or intentional damage. The landlord should not be better or worse off. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. g. Court decisions also make it clear that an assessment of loss must be based on what is reasonable. 1 The Tenancy Tribunal often applies this principle. For example, if a kitchen bench has a small chip or burn, it may not be reasonable to replace the whole bench. Similarly, where there is a small stain on carpet it is not usually reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room. Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlords for the full cost to replace the carpet in the premises?
The landlords did not initially provide photos taken at the final inspection after the tenancy ended. I allowed them to email new video and photo evidence during the hearing and heard oral evidence and submissions from both parties.
The landlords’ view is that the carpet was significantly damaged by scratching by the cats, stains and odour.
The parties agree the carpet was brand new at the start of this tenancy. The landlords first tried to clean the house themselves but then arranged for the house to be professionally cleaned. The same company also shampooed the carpet.
There is no evidence to show the condition of the carpet after it had been shampooed.
After reviewing all evidence, I accept that the landlords have proven that the below damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear:- a. Pulling of numerous carpet fibres on the front edges of all sixteen stairs (leading to the upstairs of the house); b. One area of pulled carpet fibres in the hallway outside a bedroom door (about 40cm diameter); c. Four small (about 3-5mm), bright ink stains in the second bedroom.
The video moves quickly through the bedrooms. I am not satisfied that there was extensive pulling of carpet fibres in any other room.
The landlords’ video shows a light yellow, moderately sized stain in the master bedroom. This is not proven to be permanent damage because there are no photos supplied from after the carpets had been cleaned.
The landlords point out that a written quote from a furnishing company to replace the carpet says that it has “... sustained significant damage and staining that cannot be effectively repaired or cleaned.” The quote goes on to say: 1 This principle comes from an English House of Lords decision called Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyh [1995] UKHL 8. Due to the extent of the damage, replacement of the affected carpet areas is required to restore the flooring to a functional and acceptable condition.
The concern I have about this evidence is that the furnishing company has a vested interest in recommending the carpet be replaced because it will gain business from that advice. It is not independent evidence. This is why evidence from a specialist carpet cleaning company or insurer is better.
I do not agree with the conclusion of the furnishing company that replacement of all the carpet in the house is required to return the flooring to a functional and acceptable condition.
The landlords also mentioned an odour in the house. My decision is that the evidence does not prove the carpet was damaged by odour. There is no supporting evidence about odour from the carpet cleaning company, an insurance company or any other source. The landlords’ oral evidence about the concerns of the current tenants was vague. They said the current tenants remain upset about cat hair, but it is unclear to me whether they have any other concern.
The landlords told me they contacted their insurer and were told that an excess of $750.00 per room would apply to any claim. They have not made an insurance claim.
The landlords explained that they have decided to replace all of the carpet because this was a brand-new property at the start of this tenancy (9 months ago) and they want to maintain a high standard of tenant and rental.
The carpet had not been replaced as at the date of the hearing, but the landlords said they had booked this to be done in the next few days. This means the landlords have not incurred any cost or loss yet.
I agree with the tenant that it is reasonable to expect the landlords to seek the advice of a specialist carpet cleaning and repair company before deciding to replace the carpet. Some odour and stains can be effectively treated or deodorised and there may also be repairs that could be done to small areas of pulled fibres (for example, trimming the pulled fibres or patching the carpet in these areas).
I understand the landlords’ concern to maintain a high standard in the premises. However, the reality is that there will be ongoing wear and tear including the possibility of future damage. It is not generally economic to replace flooring in tenanted premises unless damage is significant such as large, obvious stains, large tears or burns, strong odour affecting underlay and carpet.
My decisions about compensation for the proven damage are:- a. The extent of pulling or tearing of carpet fibres on the stairs mean it is reasonable to replace the carpet in this area. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume this damage is covered by the landlords’ insurance and award the maximum which is the amount of the excess of $750.00. b. The pulled carpet fibres in the hallway (outside the bedroom) do not justify replacing the carpet in the whole hallway. I award $350.00 to recognise a loss of value which is recognition that the carpet’s expected lifespan has been reduced. c. The three or four ink stains in the second bedroom are small so do not justify replacing the carpet in this whole room. I award $350.00 to recognise a loss of value.
The total awarded to the landlords in compensation for damage to the carpet is $1,450.00.
The claim is partly successful, so I also award the filing fee.
I suppress the landlords’ names to be consistent with my first order and because their application is substantially successful. The tenant’s name is not suppressed but I note his attendance at the hearings and willingness to meet his responsibilities.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451819 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451819 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law relating to damage to tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law relating to damage to tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions