What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420925?

The tribunal order states: Jahmin Te Karu and Xavier Whatarangi must pay Js Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5420925?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420925?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492790-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420925?

The tribunal order states: Jahmin Te Karu and Xavier Whatarangi must pay Js Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5420925?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420925?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492790-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32B Station Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420925 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420925 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - carpet damage	$2,200.00	Compensation - carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420925 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - carpet damage	$2,200.00	Compensation - carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,228.00

Order

Jahmin Te Karu and Xavier Whatarangi must pay Js Property Management Limited As The Agent For V H P Sarabu $2,228.00 from the bond as calculated in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,228.00 (BN-17499722) to Js Property Management Limited As The Agent For V H P Sarabu immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $372.00 (BN-17499722) to Jahmin Te Karu and Xavier Whatarangi immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 4 August 2024 and ended on 5 August 2025.
The landlord now claims compensation and payment of the bond.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 2 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 RTA, 40(1)(e). 3 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 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. 4
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5
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). 6 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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
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. 9 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. 10
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

THE CLAIMS

The landlord had claimed: a. Chem dry assessment - $180. b. Cleaning and curtain replacement -$1,171.85 c. Listing fees x 2 - $149.50 each. d. Replacement of carpet $4,111,30. 4 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 7 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 8 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 9 RTA s 49B(1). 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. e. Curtain replacement - $522.10. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. f. Reimbursement of the filing fee. g. Payment of the bond
It transpired at the hearing that the landlord has made an insurance claim, which covered cleaning, curtain replacement and the carpet replacement. The landlord amended the claim to be four insurance excesses in respect to the claims for cleaning, the curtains and carpet replacement, being a total of $2,200.
The landlord says the carpet was damaged during the tenancy by way of the tenant’s dog being allowed inside the premises and urinating inside.
The landlord says the carpet was installed approximately three years before the end of the tenancy. The landlord raised a concern about the odour at the end of the tenancy and the tenant’s had the carpet cleaned. The landlord says the odour remained and carpet replacement was necessary.
The landlord obtained a Chem dry assessment following the tenants disputing causing any damage. The Chem dry assessment says: Monday 25 Aug 2025 Arrived onsite to complete an assessment for urine odour. On entry, a strong urine smell was present throughout the house. The carpet appears to be in generally good condition, with no obvious surface staining visible. It also appears to have been previously cleaned. This has made detection of urine contamination more difficult, as a black light inspection revealed minimal visible evidence within the carpet fibres. Based on the odour and inspection, it is most likely that the urine has penetrated into the underlay and potentially into the chipboard subfloor. Effective urine treatment requires identification and direct treatment of all contaminated areas. As the exact urine locations cannot be identified in the carpet fibres, full treatment is not possible. The underlay is considered unsalvageable due to contamination either from the original incidents or from urine crystals being mobilised and absorbed during past cleaning attempts. If the subfloor has also absorbed urine, it will require sealing with an appropriate product to prevent offgassing from remaining urine salts. Conclusion: The carpet cannot be effectively salvaged due to hidden urine contamination and the inability to fully identify and treat all affected areas. Underlay will require replacement, and subfloor sealing may be necessary if contamination is confirmed.
The landlord provided photographs from during the tenancy to show pet fur throughout the premises. The landlord also provided a photograph of what appears to be a piece of dog food and dog faeces in the tenant’s rubbish bin. In addition, there has been communication since shortly after the tenancy commenced about the tenant’s wanting to have their dog at the premises and further issues with the smell in the premises. This is not a situation where the issue only arose after the tenancy ended.
The landlord, (the property manager) also confirmed he had been inside the premises and could smell the urine odour.
The tenant’s disputed allowing a dog in the premises, dispute the existence or damage to the carpet or causing the damage.
The tenant’s say they had a dog, which they introduced to the property manager early in the tenancy to see if the landlord would allow them to have it at the premises and the landlord only agreed if they agreed to pay additional rent, which they did not. They say the dog was never inside the home.
The tenants say the carpet had a smell at the commencement of the tenancy.
However, I note that the tenants arranged for carpet cleaning in March 2025 at their expense when the landlord raised concerns about the odour. In addition, communication from early in the tenancy indicates the landlord had concerns about the odour created by a pet.
Further, I note that early in the tenancy the tenant’s emailed the landlord saying: Regarding the issue of the Pet we have reviewed the tenancy agreement and have also researched this matter. According to our findings it is generally acceptable for a pet to visit the property as long as they are well behaved and don't damage the property. However, if there is a specific clause within the agreement that prohibits this we would appreciate it if you could kindly provide the signed PDF documents including any clauses that pertain to this so we can review them and ensure we are fully compliant with the terms.
This comment gives the impression that the tenant’s may have allowed a dog to visit the premises, if not live there permanently.
On reviewing the photographic evidence, the evidence from the third parties in particular being the chem dry assessment and the flooring first quote (which refers to the strong animal smell) I consider it more likely than not that this carpet was damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s dog being allowed inside from time to time and it urinating inside. I consider this damage to be intentional because it appears to have occurred in a number of rooms over a prolonged period.
The issue then becomes what compensation should be ordered.
The property manager said the landlord received an insurance cash settlement of $3861.26 less 4 insurance excess of $550 were incurred (total $2,200). I am ordering the amount of $2,200, being the insurance excess (x4) in respect of the claim. I am relying on the landlord’s oral evidence in respect of the insurance claim, because were it not for the insurance claim the tenant would be liable for the full amount of the carpet replacement less depreciation. $2,200 is the lesser amount. Because the claim covered the associated cleaning and curtain replacement, I do not need to consider these claims any further as it appears the landlord has not incurred any additional cost in relation to these matters.
I record the landlord’s lack of clarity in respect of these claims and the landlord’s need to ring the owner to seek clarification about the claims and insurance position during the hearing. If I am wrong in my understanding of the insurance claim settlement, I record that I consider there is insufficient evidence that the tenant did not otherwise leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The carpet damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had to obtain independent evidence in respect of the carpet damage, by way of the Chem dry assessment. Given the lack of documentary evidence from the insurer I am unclear why the claim has not covered the chem dry assessment. In addition, while the landlord has provided a document referred to as the “chem dry payment receipt” (emailed during the hearing) I have further reviewed this document, and it does not appear to show confirmation of the payment being made. The landlord has not provided correspondence from the insurer to outline what was covered by the claim. In the absence of documentary evidence about what was covered by insurance, I am dismissing the claim for the Chem dry carpet assessment.
The landlord said the property was listed for renting however, the listing had to be withdrawn pending carpet replacement, and the property was relisted at a later date. The landlord provided details of what the usual cost of listing a rental premises is and evidence of this property being listed once. One listing charge would have been incurred in any event, as part of finding a new tenant after this tenancy ended. The tenant is not responsible for that cost. In any event I am not satisfied the landlord has provided sufficient evidence in support of the claim. I consider the landlord has not provided evidence of there being an additional listing (i.e. proof of two sets of payments and date stamped screen shots of the listing), therefore I am dismissing the claim in respect of the listing fees.
The result of all claims is that the landlord is to receive $2,200 compensation from the bond for the carpet damage (for the insurance claim that also covered cleaning and curtain replacement) and the balance of the claim is dismissed. BOND / FILING FEE / SUPPRESSION
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. The balance is to be paid to the tenant.
The landlord has been partly successful in the claim; therefore, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. 11
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420925 — Property damage at 32B Station Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420925 — Property damage at 32B Station Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions