What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469452 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5469452?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469452?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13858434-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469452 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5469452?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469452?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13858434-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Silverstone Loop, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469452 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 6 July 2026. Ms Clarke represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a work order for the replacement of all the carpets in the premises which she alleges are pet soiled and as a result emit an odour.
The tenant also seeks compensation equivalent to a 50% rent refund for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the odour. Previous order
I first heard the application on 8 May 2026. I dealt with one aspect of the tenant’s application. I dismissed her application for compensation for alleged unlawful entries by the landlord.
I adjourned the application for a work order (carpet replacement) and issued directions for the landlord to obtain an assessment by Extreme Carpet Cleaning of all the carpets at the premises. I posed 5 questions that I wanted the carpet cleaning professional contractor to assess.
At yesterday’s hearing, the tenant responded to the landlord’s evidence presented at the first hearing.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Further evidence
The landlord complied with the directions I issued on 8 May 2026. Mr Ford of Extreme Carpet Cleaning Ltd provided a report following an inspection on 20 May 2026.
The tenant has provided additional evidence – 5 short videos which were recorded by her home security system of the carpet assessment, 2 statements by JPs addressing the odour issue, and a brief report from Jaes Carpet Cleaning addressing the assessment that was done and alleged defects with it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Is the carpet at the premises damaged by pet or other soling such that it emits an odour that means it must be replaced? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour? Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Is the carpet at the premises damaged by pet or other soling such that it emits an odour that means it must be replaced?
The reason the Tribunal ordered the landlord to obtain a report from a carpet cleaning professional after doing an actual inspection of the carpets was to address the evidential conflict that existed when the Tribunal first heard the application.
The Tribunal set out relevant questions to address the causation issues.
Cases such as this often cannot be decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The report sought at the Tribunal’s direction has answered the questions the Tribunal wanted addressed. Specifically, the report writer has noted: •No urine or pet-related odour was detected in any carpeted area •UV light inspection did not reveal fluorescence typically associated with urine contamination on the face yarn or backing, underlay, or concrete floor •Moisture and contamination sensing equipment produced no positive indication of urine contamination •Sections of carpet were lifted for inspection of the carpet backing and underlay in the dining area 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 •No urine odour was detected from either the carpet backing or underlay materials.
The report concluded: At the time of inspection, no evidence of active urine contamination or significant pet odour was identified within the carpets, carpet backing, or underlay at the property. No findings were observed that would support full carpet replacement on the basis of odour contamination.
In response, the tenant sought advice from Jaes Carpet Cleaning about whether the UV light test would have worked in the light conditions present when the test was done. Jaes believed not.
The tenant also produced brief statements from two JPs. One states that there was an offensive odour when they walked into the house and that ‘anyone with allergies could end up becoming unwell’ (the tenant said that the person who wrote that statement has a cat allergy). The other JP states that there was odour in the front half of the house.
The JPs state that they also rubbed their hands on the carpets noticing odour.
So, what evidence should the Tribunal prefer? The best evidence in this case is the report by Extreme Carpet Cleaners who did the assessment the Tribunal ordered and who answered the specific questions posed by the Tribunal.
Jaes Carpet Cleaning did not visit the premises to assess the carpets. I place little weight on the opinions of the JPs who provided statements. They are not carpet specialists and one of them even offered an opinion about someone with allergies becoming unwell. Given that the tenant alleges unwellness due to the odour, that suggests bias. Bias aside, a JP is not qualified to give that opinion.
In contrast, the tenant’s GP reported a variety of symptoms but was unable to identify a single definitive cause.
The tenant’s genuinely held belief that the carpets are soiled with pet urine or some other contaminant that emits an odour that is the cause of her symptoms is not sufficient to establish contamination in fact.
The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed any breach of its statutory responsibility to maintain and repair the premises, and to provide them in a reasonably clean condition, in this case by ensuring that the carpets are reasonably clean.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for a work order requiring the landlord to replace the carpets at the premises.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour?

Compensation follows a breach. Because the tenant has not proved that the landlord breached any of their statutory responsibilities related to the cleanliness of the carpets, I must dismiss her application for compensation. Result
For the reasons given, the tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 6 July 2026. Ms Clarke represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a work order for the replacement of all the carpets in the premises which she alleges are pet soiled and as a result emit an odour.
The tenant also seeks compensation equivalent to a 50% rent refund for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the odour. Previous order
I first heard the application on 8 May 2026. I dealt with one aspect of the tenant’s application. I dismissed her application for compensation for alleged unlawful entries by the landlord.
I adjourned the application for a work order (carpet replacement) and issued directions for the landlord to obtain an assessment by Extreme Carpet Cleaning of all the carpets at the premises. I posed 5 questions that I wanted the carpet cleaning professional contractor to assess.
At yesterday’s hearing, the tenant responded to the landlord’s evidence presented at the first hearing.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Further evidence
The landlord complied with the directions I issued on 8 May 2026. Mr Ford of Extreme Carpet Cleaning Ltd provided a report following an inspection on 20 May 2026.
The tenant has provided additional evidence – 5 short videos which were recorded by her home security system of the carpet assessment, 2 statements by JPs addressing the odour issue, and a brief report from Jaes Carpet Cleaning addressing the assessment that was done and alleged defects with it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Is the carpet at the premises damaged by pet or other soling such that it emits an odour that means it must be replaced? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour? Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Is the carpet at the premises damaged by pet or other soling such that it emits an odour that means it must be replaced?
The reason the Tribunal ordered the landlord to obtain a report from a carpet cleaning professional after doing an actual inspection of the carpets was to address the evidential conflict that existed when the Tribunal first heard the application.
The Tribunal set out relevant questions to address the causation issues.
Cases such as this often cannot be decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The report sought at the Tribunal’s direction has answered the questions the Tribunal wanted addressed. Specifically, the report writer has noted: •No urine or pet-related odour was detected in any carpeted area •UV light inspection did not reveal fluorescence typically associated with urine contamination on the face yarn or backing, underlay, or concrete floor •Moisture and contamination sensing equipment produced no positive indication of urine contamination •Sections of carpet were lifted for inspection of the carpet backing and underlay in the dining area 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 •No urine odour was detected from either the carpet backing or underlay materials.
The report concluded: At the time of inspection, no evidence of active urine contamination or significant pet odour was identified within the carpets, carpet backing, or underlay at the property. No findings were observed that would support full carpet replacement on the basis of odour contamination.
In response, the tenant sought advice from Jaes Carpet Cleaning about whether the UV light test would have worked in the light conditions present when the test was done. Jaes believed not.
The tenant also produced brief statements from two JPs. One states that there was an offensive odour when they walked into the house and that ‘anyone with allergies could end up becoming unwell’ (the tenant said that the person who wrote that statement has a cat allergy). The other JP states that there was odour in the front half of the house.
The JPs state that they also rubbed their hands on the carpets noticing odour.
So, what evidence should the Tribunal prefer? The best evidence in this case is the report by Extreme Carpet Cleaners who did the assessment the Tribunal ordered and who answered the specific questions posed by the Tribunal.
Jaes Carpet Cleaning did not visit the premises to assess the carpets. I place little weight on the opinions of the JPs who provided statements. They are not carpet specialists and one of them even offered an opinion about someone with allergies becoming unwell. Given that the tenant alleges unwellness due to the odour, that suggests bias. Bias aside, a JP is not qualified to give that opinion.
In contrast, the tenant’s GP reported a variety of symptoms but was unable to identify a single definitive cause.
The tenant’s genuinely held belief that the carpets are soiled with pet urine or some other contaminant that emits an odour that is the cause of her symptoms is not sufficient to establish contamination in fact.
The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed any breach of its statutory responsibility to maintain and repair the premises, and to provide them in a reasonably clean condition, in this case by ensuring that the carpets are reasonably clean.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for a work order requiring the landlord to replace the carpets at the premises.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour?

Compensation follows a breach. Because the tenant has not proved that the landlord breached any of their statutory responsibilities related to the cleanliness of the carpets, I must dismiss her application for compensation. Result
For the reasons given, the tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469452 — Mould & damp at 14 Silverstone Loop, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469452 — Mould & damp at 14 Silverstone Loop, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation due to the carpet odour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions