What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5474812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474812?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13729323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5474812?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474812?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13729323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Norfolk Street, Balclutha 9230 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5474812 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. Reserved

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams on 8 June 2026. Both parties attended the hearing.
Layla Carruthers attended for the landlord.
The tenants attended for themselves.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess the landlord had to pay for claiming insurance cover for damage to the premises carpet.
The tenants oppose the application. Background
The facts are well set out in the landlord’s application, which states: The tenants vacated the property leaving a bleach stain on the lounge/dining room carpet. The tenants advised they attempted to clean the stain (caused by a freezer sitting directly on the carpet) with a carpet cleaning product. Also, the scrubbing action has "blown" the pile of the carpet. Owners lodged an insurance claim. A service report by Jae (arranged by the insurance company) advised they could not treat the stain and a bonded insert is not recommended as the wear and colour would be completely different. Therefore, Carpet Court have been asked by the owner's insurance company, to replace the carpet. Insurance excess is being claimed from the bond. The excess amount being claimed is slightly less than the excess amount on the insurance policy as the owners incorrectly advised the property manager that the excess amount was $700, not $750. Upon checking with the previous owner of the property, the carpet throughout the home was replaced in approximately 2015, upon completion of a kitchen renovation. The bond refund has already been processed by MBIE. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the 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. 1
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. 2
Where the landlord proves the tenant is liable for damage, the remedy of a compensation order is available. The purpose of compensation is to reimburse the landlord for its loss. The Tribunal’s order should restore the landlord to the economic position they were in prior to the damage occurring. Thus, if the landlord incurred a cost to replace damaged item, the landlord should be compensated for that cost. However, when assessing the landlord’s loss, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. So, if the damaged item is old and in need of replacement even prior to the damage, the landlord may not have suffered any economic loss when it replaces 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 2 RTA 49B(3)(a). the item because the item had no value and would have needed replacing imminently anyway. Discussion
The carpet was 11 years old. The likely useful lifespan of carpet is eight years. 3 Despite the carpet’s age it was generally sound. It was faded and worn but would have remained useable for perhaps about two years.
The stained and damaged area of carpet is small, but all the carpet had to be replaced because it was not practicable to patch the damage.
The landlord has had to pay an excess of $750.00 but has a much better carpet than the rather old and worn carpet that was in place. So, the landlord has benefitted by having new carpet installed at a discounted price.
If the landlord were not insured, I would have been minded to ordering the tenants to pay approximately 20 per cent of the landlord’s costs to replace the carpet. But in this case, the landlord was insured and has not suffered any economic loss once the overall outcome to the landlord is considered. Conclusion
The landlord has not suffered any economic loss. The Tribunal declines to order the tenants pay the landlord any compensation towards the excess. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenants’ names. 3 Tenancy Services website; Inland Revenue Depreciation Guidelines.
I do not find there are any sufficient grounds to warrant non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The claim in unexceptional. It was properly brought but was unsuccessful. There is a public interest in open justice which cannot be lightly disregarded.
The Tribunal declines to order non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. Reserved

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams on 8 June 2026. Both parties attended the hearing.
Layla Carruthers attended for the landlord.
The tenants attended for themselves.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess the landlord had to pay for claiming insurance cover for damage to the premises carpet.
The tenants oppose the application. Background
The facts are well set out in the landlord’s application, which states: The tenants vacated the property leaving a bleach stain on the lounge/dining room carpet. The tenants advised they attempted to clean the stain (caused by a freezer sitting directly on the carpet) with a carpet cleaning product. Also, the scrubbing action has "blown" the pile of the carpet. Owners lodged an insurance claim. A service report by Jae (arranged by the insurance company) advised they could not treat the stain and a bonded insert is not recommended as the wear and colour would be completely different. Therefore, Carpet Court have been asked by the owner's insurance company, to replace the carpet. Insurance excess is being claimed from the bond. The excess amount being claimed is slightly less than the excess amount on the insurance policy as the owners incorrectly advised the property manager that the excess amount was $700, not $750. Upon checking with the previous owner of the property, the carpet throughout the home was replaced in approximately 2015, upon completion of a kitchen renovation. The bond refund has already been processed by MBIE. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the 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. 1
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. 2
Where the landlord proves the tenant is liable for damage, the remedy of a compensation order is available. The purpose of compensation is to reimburse the landlord for its loss. The Tribunal’s order should restore the landlord to the economic position they were in prior to the damage occurring. Thus, if the landlord incurred a cost to replace damaged item, the landlord should be compensated for that cost. However, when assessing the landlord’s loss, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. So, if the damaged item is old and in need of replacement even prior to the damage, the landlord may not have suffered any economic loss when it replaces 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 2 RTA 49B(3)(a). the item because the item had no value and would have needed replacing imminently anyway. Discussion
The carpet was 11 years old. The likely useful lifespan of carpet is eight years. 3 Despite the carpet’s age it was generally sound. It was faded and worn but would have remained useable for perhaps about two years.
The stained and damaged area of carpet is small, but all the carpet had to be replaced because it was not practicable to patch the damage.
The landlord has had to pay an excess of $750.00 but has a much better carpet than the rather old and worn carpet that was in place. So, the landlord has benefitted by having new carpet installed at a discounted price.
If the landlord were not insured, I would have been minded to ordering the tenants to pay approximately 20 per cent of the landlord’s costs to replace the carpet. But in this case, the landlord was insured and has not suffered any economic loss once the overall outcome to the landlord is considered. Conclusion
The landlord has not suffered any economic loss. The Tribunal declines to order the tenants pay the landlord any compensation towards the excess. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenants’ names. 3 Tenancy Services website; Inland Revenue Depreciation Guidelines.
I do not find there are any sufficient grounds to warrant non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The claim in unexceptional. It was properly brought but was unsuccessful. There is a public interest in open justice which cannot be lightly disregarded.
The Tribunal declines to order non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474812 — Cleanliness at 31 Norfolk Street, Balclutha 9230

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474812 — Cleanliness at 31 Norfolk Street, Balclutha 9230

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions