Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5496185 — Property damage at 45 Blomfield Street, Pukehangi, Rotorua 3015
Published 13 May 2026 · Application 5496185
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Rotorua
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Walker
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet replacement | $2,700.00 | Carpet replacement | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Claims and awards for application 5496185. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet replacement
- Amount
- $2,700.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5716490-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Acting Agent For Tracey And Adam Cruickshank: $2,728.00 Bruce Lai: $72.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing held on 13 May 2026 by video.
- The landlord applied for compensation for carpet replacement. The tenant applied for bond refund.
- The tenancy began on 27 February 2022 and ended on 31 October 2025.
- The issue before the Tribunal is replacement of some of the carpet at the premises due to damage caused by the tenant’s cats by urinating.
- The tenant had three adult cats at the premises. He said that he restricted the cats to one bedroom in the premises. He said that they were toilet trained and used cat litter boxes except for after an incident in 2023 where they were traumatised by a neighbour’s dog. He said that because of that incident he observed the cats urinate four times on the carpet.
- The tenant said that he cleaned the carpet in 2024 and afterwards kept the cats outside in special crates. A couple of days before the tenancy ended the tenant paid for professional carpet cleaning which included special treatment for pet urination in one bedroom. The tenant thinks that the premises were not aired after the cleaning which may have caused a damp smell, or the special treatment may have smelt due to the action of breaking down the urine crystals.
- The tenant accepts that the carpet in the bedroom which the cats had occupied should be replaced. He denies that the carpet in the other three bedrooms were damaged by cat urine.
- The landlord produced supporting evidence from carpet contractors. One contractor, Paul Davy, attended the premises on 27 November 2025 to measure for new carpets. He said in his email that, “The smell was very distinct throughout all the bedrooms, and the existing carpet appeared dirty in all four rooms”.
- The second professional, Waveney Mcbride of Flooring Design attended the premises on 15 December 2025. That report states, “During the inspection, visible staining consistent with cat urine contamination was observed. The tenant has advised that cats were only permitted to urinate in one room of the house. However, based on our professional observations, the ammonia odour has permeated beyond a single room and is present throughout the property”.
- It is not possible to photograph damage causing smells and this includes carpet damaged by cat urine. The Tribunal therefore relies on any evidence produced from third parties and preferably flooring professionals.
- Given that the tenant has acknowledged his cats have urinated inside the premises and based on the evidence of the two professionals, I find it more likely than not that the carpet in the four rooms has been damaged and it was necessary for it to be replaced.
- The landlord’s claim for replacement of the carpet in four bedrooms is awarded. The bond is released after taking account of this award.
- Because Property Brokers Limited As Acting Agent For Tracey And Adam Cruickshank has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The tenant sought name suppression but as he has not substantially succeeded with his claim I decline to make a suppression order.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5496185?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5716490-008) immediately
How much money was awarded in case 5496185?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496185?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496185?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13590573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.