What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5444928?

The tribunal order states: There are no orders for suppression of names or identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5444928?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444928?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13630784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5444928?

The tribunal order states: There are no orders for suppression of names or identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5444928?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444928?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13630784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

121 Seabury Avenue, Foxton Beach, Foxton 4815 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444928 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5444928 — net $820.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$600.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$220.00	Repairs
Net award	$820.00
Bond	$1,860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.00

Order

There are no orders for suppression of names or identifying details.
Gina Te Huki is to pay Rodney Eion Baker as the agent for Colonial Cottage (2012) Ltd $820.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 (BN17512603) immediately apportioned as follows: Rodney Eion Baker as the agent for Colonial Cottage (2012) Ltd: $820.00 Gina Te Huki: $1,040.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy ran from 26 July 2024 to 14 January 2026.
The application referred to carpet replacement of $6,000 for the whole house, carpet clean $114, glazier $270 and fix wall $200.
At the hearing, there were two items being claimed: a broken window and replacement carpet.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
The tenant did not dispute that during the tenancy a window broke. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided a receipt for $220 for repair of the window. That amount is ordered.
The other matter concerns the carpet in the lounge and dining room. The landlord says that it had to be replaced because it was damaged by dog urine. They landlord seeks replacement costs of $2,736.90.
The landlord had agreed that the tenant could have one dog, a fox terrier. It transpired that someone else had moved into the tenancy with another dog. The landlord had not consented to this.
The landlord provided no photographs of the property at the start or end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bond had been fully refunded to the previous tenant.
The tenant provided photographs of the premises, but these had been printed onto photocopying paper. The quality is not great.
At the start of the tenancy, the carpet was one year old, the property having been a new build. During the first year, the property had been on air bandb and had been rented for one term of 3 months.
The landlord had brought a roll of carpet to the courthouse but was not permitted to bring it through security. During the hearing, we went to his van to examine the carpet. This piece was from the dining/lounge area.
It shows a yellow, fluorescent patch at one edge. The under side of the carpet shows brown areas consistent with fluid being spilt. The landlord says that this is dog urine and that the carpet had to be replaced because it smelt so bad.
The tenant acknowledges that there were one or two “accidents” with the dog, and agrees that the carpets needed to be cleaned, but disputes that the carpet needed to be replaced. At the end of the tenancy she had offered to clean the carpet, but the landlord told her to leave it. That is recorded in emails between the parties.
There had been an inspection on 12 November 2025 and an open home on 2 January 2026. The landlord said that on 12 November he noticed stains on the carpet and was told that they were fair wear and tear.
The tenant says that the landlord had conducted inspections and not raised any issue with the smell of the carpet. Discussion
Usually when a landlord makes a claim for carpet, there are entry inspection and exit inspection photographs. If there is a concern about pet urine, there is usually a report from an independent professional carpet cleaner describing the issue and recording either that they have treated the carpet but the results have not been successful or that the extent of the problems is such that cleaning is unlikely to remedy it, usually because of the state of the underlay, and therefore replacement is recommended.
In this instance, the landlord provided an invoice for cleaning the bedroom carpets and said that he was told that the others should be replaced. There were no photographs of the bedroom carpets or report from an independent professional carpet cleaner,
The landlord provided an email from his insurer saying that insurance would not cover the damage.
I find that the tenant is responsible for pet urine in the carpet. It is possible that it needed to be replaced, but there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that it is more likely than not that it needed replacement.
However, it is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for the cost of a professional carpet clean of the dining and lounge area and so I allow $600 for that. There is insufficient evidence that the bedroom carpets required cleaning.
I note that even if I had been satisfied that the carpet needed to be replaced, applying the depreciation rates under the IRD depreciation guidelines, the full replacement cost would not have been ordered. The sum would have been in the region of $1,200.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee because I do not consider the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5444928 — net $820.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$600.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$220.00	Repairs
Net award	$820.00
Bond	$1,860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.00

Order

There are no orders for suppression of names or identifying details.
Gina Te Huki is to pay Rodney Eion Baker as the agent for Colonial Cottage (2012) Ltd $820.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 (BN17512603) immediately apportioned as follows: Rodney Eion Baker as the agent for Colonial Cottage (2012) Ltd: $820.00 Gina Te Huki: $1,040.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy ran from 26 July 2024 to 14 January 2026.
The application referred to carpet replacement of $6,000 for the whole house, carpet clean $114, glazier $270 and fix wall $200.
At the hearing, there were two items being claimed: a broken window and replacement carpet.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
The tenant did not dispute that during the tenancy a window broke. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided a receipt for $220 for repair of the window. That amount is ordered.
The other matter concerns the carpet in the lounge and dining room. The landlord says that it had to be replaced because it was damaged by dog urine. They landlord seeks replacement costs of $2,736.90.
The landlord had agreed that the tenant could have one dog, a fox terrier. It transpired that someone else had moved into the tenancy with another dog. The landlord had not consented to this.
The landlord provided no photographs of the property at the start or end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bond had been fully refunded to the previous tenant.
The tenant provided photographs of the premises, but these had been printed onto photocopying paper. The quality is not great.
At the start of the tenancy, the carpet was one year old, the property having been a new build. During the first year, the property had been on air bandb and had been rented for one term of 3 months.
The landlord had brought a roll of carpet to the courthouse but was not permitted to bring it through security. During the hearing, we went to his van to examine the carpet. This piece was from the dining/lounge area.
It shows a yellow, fluorescent patch at one edge. The under side of the carpet shows brown areas consistent with fluid being spilt. The landlord says that this is dog urine and that the carpet had to be replaced because it smelt so bad.
The tenant acknowledges that there were one or two “accidents” with the dog, and agrees that the carpets needed to be cleaned, but disputes that the carpet needed to be replaced. At the end of the tenancy she had offered to clean the carpet, but the landlord told her to leave it. That is recorded in emails between the parties.
There had been an inspection on 12 November 2025 and an open home on 2 January 2026. The landlord said that on 12 November he noticed stains on the carpet and was told that they were fair wear and tear.
The tenant says that the landlord had conducted inspections and not raised any issue with the smell of the carpet. Discussion
Usually when a landlord makes a claim for carpet, there are entry inspection and exit inspection photographs. If there is a concern about pet urine, there is usually a report from an independent professional carpet cleaner describing the issue and recording either that they have treated the carpet but the results have not been successful or that the extent of the problems is such that cleaning is unlikely to remedy it, usually because of the state of the underlay, and therefore replacement is recommended.
In this instance, the landlord provided an invoice for cleaning the bedroom carpets and said that he was told that the others should be replaced. There were no photographs of the bedroom carpets or report from an independent professional carpet cleaner,
The landlord provided an email from his insurer saying that insurance would not cover the damage.
I find that the tenant is responsible for pet urine in the carpet. It is possible that it needed to be replaced, but there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that it is more likely than not that it needed replacement.
However, it is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for the cost of a professional carpet clean of the dining and lounge area and so I allow $600 for that. There is insufficient evidence that the bedroom carpets required cleaning.
I note that even if I had been satisfied that the carpet needed to be replaced, applying the depreciation rates under the IRD depreciation guidelines, the full replacement cost would not have been ordered. The sum would have been in the region of $1,200.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee because I do not consider the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444928 — Cleanliness at 121 Seabury Avenue, Foxton Beach, Foxton 4815

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444928 — Cleanliness at 121 Seabury Avenue, Foxton Beach, Foxton 4815

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions