What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5106549?

The tribunal order states: Tayla Hammond must pay Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family

How much money was awarded in case 5106549?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106549?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5106549?

The tribunal order states: Tayla Hammond must pay Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family

How much money was awarded in case 5106549?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106549?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

273A Ireland Road, Waitoki, RD 1, Waitoki 0871 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5106549 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Tayla Hammond must pay Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family Trust, $200.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $400.00 (6272502-002) immediately, apportioned as follows: Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family Trust: $200.00 Tayla Hammond: $200.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Claim
The landlord claims compensation of $400.00 from the tenant’s bond for the excess he paid on an insurance claim for replacement of carpet in the premises.
The remainder of the bond has been released to the parties under an agreement recorded in a Mediator’s Order in these proceedings dated 10 March 2025.
The landlord’s claim is that the carpet was damaged by urine and excrement from the tenant’s cat. Background
The premises occupied by the tenant and the landlord’s residence are in close proximity.
The landlord has 2 cats. He says that he reluctantly agreed that the tenant could have a cat at the premises and the agreement records “Cats permitted: yes (one x cat – Simba)”.
The landlords’ cats had access to the tenant’s premises and the tenant’s cat had access to the landlord’s.
After the tenancy ended the landlord cleaned the carpets in the premises. His evidence is that it when showing the premises to prospective new tenants, a very strong animal odour was apparent. It was discovered that cat stains had penetrated the carpet and underlay to the extent that they could not be cleaned. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted and the affected part of the carpet in the premises was replaced. The landlord paid an excess of $400.00 for that claim.
The landlord says that he can be certain that the pet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat rather than his cats because: a. his cats have never urinated or defecated in the premises at any other time; and b. when the tenant’s father sadly passed, the tenant was away for five days. The landlord says he noticed the tenant’s cat, “doing somersaults” at the window of the premises in obvious distress. He investigated and found that the cat had being locked in and had visibly defecated over the carpets and must also have urinated on the carpets, being unable to get out.
The tenant’s position is that she denies having locked her cat in the premises while she was away after her father's death. She says that any carpet damage could equally have been caused by the landlord’s cats. Findings
The Tribunal is required to determine this claim on the balance of probabilities ie. what is more likely than not to have occurred, not beyond reasonable doubt. As this is the landlord’s claim, the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove the claim
Having heard the evidence, I cannot discount the possibility that the landlord’s cats urinated on the carpet. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have not done so before or since, but it is possible that the presence of the tenant’s cat, which was permitted by the agreement, triggered that response from them.
I fully accept that the tenant would not have intentionally locked her cat in the premises when she went away but her evidence is that she had arranged for friends to come and feed the cat and they may have inadvertently done so.
I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s direct evidence about what he witnessed on that occasion. That is direct evidence of damage caused to the carpet by the tenant’s cat.
Accordingly, while I do not find it proved on balance the tenant’s cat was wholly responsible for the damage to the carpet, requiring it to be replaced, I do find it proved on the balance that the tenants’ cat at least contributed to that damage.
In those circumstances I find it reasonable that the tenant makes a contribution to the cost incurred by the landlord in having the carpet replaced.
Finally, the tenant says that she should first have been given an opportunity to remedy the situation.
That is consistent with s.49 RTA which provides that “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In these circumstances, applying s.49 might mean that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the tenant a chance to clean the carpet herself before getting in professionals and tasking her to pay for them. Here though, the evidence is that the effected carpet needed to be replaced. That is not something the landlord could reasonably be expected get the tenant to do, especially given that the replacement cost was covered by the landlord’s insurance – which is a mitigation of the loss.
No order was made in respect of the filing fee

Order

Tayla Hammond must pay Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family Trust, $200.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $400.00 (6272502-002) immediately, apportioned as follows: Wayne Noel Kidd as Trustee for The Kidd Family Trust: $200.00 Tayla Hammond: $200.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Claim
The landlord claims compensation of $400.00 from the tenant’s bond for the excess he paid on an insurance claim for replacement of carpet in the premises.
The remainder of the bond has been released to the parties under an agreement recorded in a Mediator’s Order in these proceedings dated 10 March 2025.
The landlord’s claim is that the carpet was damaged by urine and excrement from the tenant’s cat. Background
The premises occupied by the tenant and the landlord’s residence are in close proximity.
The landlord has 2 cats. He says that he reluctantly agreed that the tenant could have a cat at the premises and the agreement records “Cats permitted: yes (one x cat – Simba)”.
The landlords’ cats had access to the tenant’s premises and the tenant’s cat had access to the landlord’s.
After the tenancy ended the landlord cleaned the carpets in the premises. His evidence is that it when showing the premises to prospective new tenants, a very strong animal odour was apparent. It was discovered that cat stains had penetrated the carpet and underlay to the extent that they could not be cleaned. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted and the affected part of the carpet in the premises was replaced. The landlord paid an excess of $400.00 for that claim.
The landlord says that he can be certain that the pet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat rather than his cats because: a. his cats have never urinated or defecated in the premises at any other time; and b. when the tenant’s father sadly passed, the tenant was away for five days. The landlord says he noticed the tenant’s cat, “doing somersaults” at the window of the premises in obvious distress. He investigated and found that the cat had being locked in and had visibly defecated over the carpets and must also have urinated on the carpets, being unable to get out.
The tenant’s position is that she denies having locked her cat in the premises while she was away after her father's death. She says that any carpet damage could equally have been caused by the landlord’s cats. Findings
The Tribunal is required to determine this claim on the balance of probabilities ie. what is more likely than not to have occurred, not beyond reasonable doubt. As this is the landlord’s claim, the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove the claim
Having heard the evidence, I cannot discount the possibility that the landlord’s cats urinated on the carpet. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have not done so before or since, but it is possible that the presence of the tenant’s cat, which was permitted by the agreement, triggered that response from them.
I fully accept that the tenant would not have intentionally locked her cat in the premises when she went away but her evidence is that she had arranged for friends to come and feed the cat and they may have inadvertently done so.
I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s direct evidence about what he witnessed on that occasion. That is direct evidence of damage caused to the carpet by the tenant’s cat.
Accordingly, while I do not find it proved on balance the tenant’s cat was wholly responsible for the damage to the carpet, requiring it to be replaced, I do find it proved on the balance that the tenants’ cat at least contributed to that damage.
In those circumstances I find it reasonable that the tenant makes a contribution to the cost incurred by the landlord in having the carpet replaced.
Finally, the tenant says that she should first have been given an opportunity to remedy the situation.
That is consistent with s.49 RTA which provides that “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In these circumstances, applying s.49 might mean that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the tenant a chance to clean the carpet herself before getting in professionals and tasking her to pay for them. Here though, the evidence is that the effected carpet needed to be replaced. That is not something the landlord could reasonably be expected get the tenant to do, especially given that the replacement cost was covered by the landlord’s insurance – which is a mitigation of the loss.
No order was made in respect of the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106549 — Tenancy dispute at 273A Ireland Road, Waitoki, RD 1, Waitoki 0871

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106549 — Tenancy dispute at 273A Ireland Road, Waitoki, RD 1, Waitoki 0871

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions