What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502045 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 5502045?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,720.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $97.14 awarded to landlord; Installation Of Oven Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Report: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: disposal of cur…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502045?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502045 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 5502045?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,720.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $97.14 awarded to landlord; Installation Of Oven Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Report: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: disposal of cur…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502045?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502045?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5502045 — Lost Rent

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502045 — net $8,147.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$97.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpets	$5,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Replace furnishings: curtains	$2,000.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace furnishings: curtain report	$150.00	Replace furnishings: curtain report
Replace furnishings: disposal of curtains	$100.00	Replace furnishings: disposal of curtains
Repairs: paint damage	$100.00	Repairs: paint damage
Repairs: installation of oven door	$100.00	Repairs: installation of oven door
Lost rent	$2,720.00	Lost rent
Net award	$8,147.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,147.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502045 — net $8,147.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$97.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpets	$5,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Replace furnishings: curtains	$2,000.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace furnishings: curtain report	$150.00	Replace furnishings: curtain report
Replace furnishings: disposal of curtains	$100.00	Replace furnishings: disposal of curtains
Repairs: paint damage	$100.00	Repairs: paint damage
Repairs: installation of oven door	$100.00	Repairs: installation of oven door
Lost rent	$2,720.00	Lost rent
Net award	$8,147.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,147.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $8,147.14 immediately as detailed in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$97.14 Cleaning$500.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Replace furnishings: carpets$5,000.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$2,000.00 Replace furnishings: curtain report$150.00 Replace furnishings: disposal of curtains$100.00 Repairs: paint damage$100.00 Repairs: installation of oven door$100.00 Lost rent$2,720.00 Total award$10,867.14 Bond$2,720.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,147.14

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord had filed a substantial amount of further evidence the day before the hearing and on the morning of the hearing. The tenant objected to receiving such a volume of evidence so close to the hearing. He advised that he had not had a fair opportunity to examine the evidence.
The tenant was asked whether he was seeking an adjournment in order for him to examine the landlord’s evidence and prepare himself for the hearing. He confirmed that he was not seeking an adjournment and that he wished to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. The claims
The tenant’s application was for: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for costs incurred in cleaning the carpet and windows, and for washing the house and the deck.
The landlord’s application was for: a. Rent arrears of one day and rent for the period when he was not aware that the tenant had given notice to terminate the tenancy. b. Compensation for: i. The replacement of the carpets, curtains and mats and for other damage caused by cat urine. ii. Cleaning and rubbish removal. iii. Damage to the walls, door, trims and windowsills. iv. Cleaning paint stains on the exterior of the property. v. Damage to the decking. vi. Replacement of a vanity unit. vii. Missing sink plugs. c. Loss of rent while the repairs were completed. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or the substantial amount of evidence filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. Tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed that the landlord required him to complete work that was not required of the tenant under the RTA. In evidence he provided a copy of an invoice from a professional cleaner for “carpet shampoo, windows in/out, housewash and deck wash”.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord required him to re-clean carpets using the carpet cleaner of the landlord’s choosing and sought reimbursement of this cost. He claimed that the landlord emailed these requirements to him, but no copy of the email was submitted in evidence.
The landlord confirmed that he requested the tenant to clean the carpet and windows in April 2025, about four months after this tenancy started. He denied requiring the exterior and deck cleaned. He explained that as the tenant had a cat, he required the carpets cleaned by a professional carpet cleaner, rather than just a general cleaner. Discussion and decision
There is no independent, written evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord required the tenant to give the house a wash or a deck wash. The tenant has provided evidence in the form of an invoice that these tasks were completed. He has also provided evidence that the carpets were cleaned twice – once in March and once in April 2025. These confirm that the first clean was by a general cleaner and the second by a cleaner who is a professional carpet cleaner.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord required the tenant to house wash the property or the deck, nor that the landlord was not justified in requiring the carpets cleaned by a professional cleaner.
The Tribunal has consistently confirmed that a landlord is entitled to insist on the professional cleaning of carpets where the landlord has consented to indoor pets. Recent decisions of the Tribunal confirming permission for tenants to have pets have included a condition that the carpets be professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy.
The facts of this case are slightly unusual. The tenancy began on 22 December 2024. Prior to that date, the premises were rented by one of the tenants and her mother. When her partner moved in and the mother exited, a new tenancy agreement was signed. One of the tenants therefore continued in the property and did not move out. There was not therefore an exit inspection or an entry inspection.
The tenancy agreement expressly permitted the tenant having one cat. At the hearing, neither party made it clear whether the previous tenancy agreement included consent for the cat or whether it came with the latest tenant.
The landlord requested the tenant clean the carpets after only a few months of this tenancy and the tenant complied. It is reasonable to conclude that the tenant did not think the request unreasonable after only three or four months of the tenancy. No issue was made of this request at the time and was only raised after the end of the tenancy, some nine months later.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is unable to conclude that the landlord’s request to have the carpets professionally cleaned was unreasonable and contrary to the RTA.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed. The landlord’s claim for rent
The landlord provided evidence that the tenant gave notice by email on 1 January 2026 advising that the tenancy would end on 21 January 2026.
The landlord advised that this email went into his spam folder and was not discovered until he found that the tenant had stopped paying rent and left the premises. The landlord argued that he had not received notice of the termination and that he was entitled to a further three weeks’ rent from the time he discovered the email.
The landlord claimed that the tenancy ended on 22 January 2026 which is 21- days from the tenant’s notice and that he is therefore entitled to a further day’s rent. Discussion and decision
The tenant emailed notice of termination to the landlord to the landlord’s email address for service as provided in the tenancy agreement. Under section 136(1)(d) RTA, a notice transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord as an address for service is deemed to be sufficiently served. The fact that the landlord did not discover the notice until sometime later does not affect the fact that the tenant has complied with the service requirements under the RTA.
The landlord’s claim for rent beyond the tenancy’s termination is dismissed.
The tenant’s notice was incorrect in stating that the tenancy would end on 21 January 2026. The tenant emailed the notice to the landlord at 9.29 am on 1 January 2026. Section 136A RTA provides that a period of notice commences on the first day after the notice is given: 21 days from the day after 1 January is 22 January 2026.
The tenancy therefore ended on 22 January 2026 and the landlord is entitled to one further day’s rent. Landlord’s claim for cat damage
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of this claim: a. A report from a professional carpet cleaner supported by photographic evidence that: i. “Upon inspection of the property, there is a severe and pervasive cat urine odour throughout the entire house, along with additional carpet damage noted in several areas. The level of cat urine contamination is extensive and has affected multiple rooms. Due to the severity of the odour and contamination, the affected carpets are not restorable. Additional damage is present; however, this is secondary to and superseded by the cat urine contamination.” ii. All three bedrooms, the hallway and the lounge/dining room “have been assessed as non-restorable due to severe cat urine contamination. iii. The following additional damage was observed: synthetic dye staining in two bedrooms and holes in the lounge/dining room “likely from moving furniture”. b. A report from a professional cleaning company confirming that: i. “multiple drapes throughout the property are not restorable due to contamination from cat urine, faeces, and physical damage consistent with scratching (including pulled threads). The level of contamination and damage is considered severe in the affected areas.” ii. The drapes in one bedroom, the dining room and lounge were not restorable. c. Much photographic evidence of the damage to the carpet and drapes. d. He claimed that during the tenancy there were litter boxes in both bathrooms, the garage and a bedroom. e. He advised that his insurer had accepted his claim for replacement of the carpets but had determined that five separate excesses applied so that his claim in relation to the carpets was $5,000.00. f. In addition, the landlord claimed the costs of: i. Obtaining the report on the curtains of $150.00. ii. Disposing of the curtains of $100.00. iii. Sealing and painting the concrete floor in the garage of $500.00. iv. Replacing mats of $300.00. g. A quotation for replacement of the drapes of $3,761.57. h. When he purchased the property on 27 May 2022 the carpets and curtains were new. They were therefore three and a half years old at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant rejected the landlord’s claim for cat damage for the following reasons: a. There was no industry standard for carpet testing and so the landlord’s report could not be conclusive. b. There was no entry report completed for the premises which would provide evidence of the state of the carpets and curtains at the start of the tenancy. c. The landlord has provided no documentary proof of the date of the purchase of the carpets or curtains such as a receipt. d. The damage was not caused by the tenant’s cat. e. The smell was not raised at any inspection. f. He accepted that a couple of stains on the carpet were caused by his children spilling drinks.
The landlord advised that he did raise the smell of cat urine at the last inspection, but the tenant claimed not to be able to smell anything because of hay fever. Discussion and decision
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.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s cat caused the damage to the carpet and curtains for the following reasons: a. The carpets were commercially cleaned on 22 April 2025. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there was no urine damage at that point in the tenancy as the carpets were commercially cleaned and the tenant did not complain of any urine smell after that date. b. The evidence of the damage to the carpet and curtains was so extensive and so destructive that in the absence of any other explanation, the only reasonable explanation is that it was caused by the tenant’s cat. c. If there had been issues with cat urine smell during the tenancy, the tenant did not complain, indeed he claimed to be unable to smell it when questioned by the landlord. It is difficult to understand how the tenant could continue to live in the house with the smell described by the landlord and confirmed in his reports without complaining to the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude that his failure to complain indicates that he was aware of its cause. d. While there may be no New Zealand standard for carpet cleaning, the landlord’s report is the best evidence from an experienced professional carpet cleaning company of the state of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The damage was not caused by one event but over many events. It was therefore intentional damage as it was caused over a period of time by the actions of the tenant’s cat which was not dissuaded or prevented by the tenant from continuing with the damage. The tenant is therefore liable for the full cost of repairs.
The tenant’s photographs of the carpet submitted in evidence confirm the landlord’s claim that they looked nearly new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence that they were new at the start of the tenancy is more likely than not. The carpets were therefore three and a half years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed only his insurance excesses in relation to the carpet damage. This amount is less than the depreciated value of the carpet using its replacement cost as a guide. The sum claimed by the landlord is proven.
The curtains were not insured and so the landlord has claimed for their replacement.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that the curtains were also new in May 2022. The Tribunal must consider depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position.
The Inland Revenue Department’s General Depreciation Rates IR 265 considers the life of curtains in residential rental properties at eight years. The landlord’s quotation for curtain replacement is $3,761.57. This is not the cost of the original curtains from which depreciation is usually deducted. The Tribunal must therefore estimate a fair sum to compensate the landlord for curtains that were three and a half years old. Having considered these factors a sum which the Tribunal considers just is awarded.
It is also appropriate to award a reasonable sum towards the cost of disposing of the damaged curtains. The sum awarded has been determined by invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work in this area. The carpet disposal is covered by insurance.
There is no independent evidence in the landlord’s professional report regarding the state of the garage floor or the mats. In the absence of such proof, the landlord’s claims are dismissed. Landlord’s claim for damage
The landlord’s claim included the following further items of damage: a. Scuffs, indentations and holes in the walls, doors and door trims, and the windowsills. b. Paint stains on the exterior of the property. c. Burn damage to an area of the decking. d. Staining to the vanity unit. e. Reinstallation of the oven door.
He provided the following evidence in support of his claims: a. Multiple photographs of the areas of damage. b. Receipts for some of the material required for repairs. c. Estimates of the costs of repairs. Discussion and decision
The tenant accepted responsibility for one area of paint damage to the exterior of the property. The landlord’s evidence included email confirmation from the tenant’s cleaner that the oven door was not reinstalled.
The landlord is entitled to compensation for these works and sums have been awarded that are commensurate with the labour required.
The landlord could provide no evidence of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant claimed that the damage was present at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of any photographic or other evidence of the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy, the landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims in relation to the remaining items are therefore dismissed. Landlord’s claim for cleaning, rubbish removal and missing chattels
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that: a. Several cupboards and drawers in the kitchen had not been wiped down. b. The oven and hob had not been cleaned thoroughly. c. The rangehood and dishwasher had not been cleaned. The dishwasher still contained dishes that had grown mould. d. There was a small amount of rubbish and discarded items remaining at the property.
The tenant provided evidence that he had paid a professional cleaner to complete the final clean and to clean the carpets. He believed that this was sufficient to discharge his obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy under the RTA. He accepted that some few items remained at the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed that there were a number of sink plugs and implement drawers missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claimed that they were not present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any evidence of their presence at the start of the tenancy. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that: a. There were some surface areas in cupboards and drawers that required cleaning. b. The oven and hob, rangehood and dishwasher were not reasonably clean. c. There was a small amount of rubbish and discarded items that the landlord had to dispose of.
The Tribunal has awarded sums for the completion of these tasks based on invoices that it regularly sees for similar work in this area.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal that the plugs and implement drawers were present at the start of the tenancy. These claims are dismissed. Landlord’s claim for lost rent
The landlord’s application included a claim for four weeks’ lost rent. He claimed that this was the minimum period a reasonably diligent landlord could have taken to finalise a claim with his insurer and engage a contractor to remove and install the carpet and curtains. The landlord responsibly accepted that the much longer delay he has encountered has been due to his particular circumstances and so he limited his claim to the four-week period.
A landlord can be expected to have a period of vacancy between tenancies where no rent is earned. However, it is appropriate for a tenant to compensate a landlord where they have left the property in such a state that it could not be rented and it takes a longer period for the landlord to get the property up to the necessary standard. The tenant is liable to the landlord for the landlord’s reasonably foreseeable losses. The Tribunal accepts that a reasonably diligent landlord would have suffered the loss of four weeks’ rent while a property that has suffered the cat damage was made ready for rent.
The sum claimed by the landlord is awarded. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in his application and the tenant has been successful in defending several of the landlord’s claims. It is therefore appropriate that both be granted name suppression and that each accepts responsibility for their own filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502045 — Lost Rent

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502045 — Lost Rent

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions