Landlord's Damage Claim Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for compensation for damage to a carpet. The landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the damage on the balance of probabilities.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must prove damage to property on the balance of probabilities to succeed in a claim for compensation.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that the Tenancy Tribunal must resolve disputes between landlords and tenants fairly and quickly. It also says the Tribunal should decide cases based on general legal principles and the overall fairness, rather than being strictly bound by legal technicalities.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for compensation for damage to the carpet.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for compensation for damage to a carpet, ruling that the landlord failed to prove the damage on the balance of probabilities.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429004 1
[2026] NZTT 5429004, 5429188
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
2. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the [NAME] is dismissed.
3. [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $837.37 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the remote hearing.
2. The parties have resolved all matters in their applications at mediation, except for the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the [NAME].
3. In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
4. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429004 2
5. The Tribunal must also 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).
The landlord’s and tenant’s evidence
6. The landlord provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:
a. Three photographs of faint red staining to grey [NAME]. The landlord claimed that these photographs were of three separate areas of staining.
b. Evidence of the landlord’s application to their insurer for “2 x red stains on [NAME] by tenant. Tenant has tried to remove with a [NAME] cleaning company and has not removed.”
c. The [NAME] was only eleven months old at the end of the tenancy.
d. The landlord claimed that there was also damage from pet urine that caused an odour that took time to remove.
e. The [NAME] has not been replaced. f. The premises have been relet and the new tenant has not complained of
any issue with odour.
7. The tenant confirmed that:
a. There were stains in the [NAME] at the end of the tenancy.
b. She had the carpets commercially cleaned the day after the end of the tenancy.
c. There remained a small area of faint staining in one area.
Discussion and decision
8. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has damaged the [NAME] requiring its replacement for the following reasons:
a. From the landlord’s insurance claim, there were only two small areas of staining. The photographic evidence shows only the faintest traces of staining that are barely discernible. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the [NAME] requires replacement for such a small and minor area of damage.
b. The landlord has failed to prove that they have suffered loss. The [NAME] has not been replaced, the excess has not been paid and the Tribunal has no evidence that the insurance claim has been accepted. The premises have been relet and there is no evidence that the damage has required them to be relet at a lesser rent.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429004 3
c. The landlord has not provided evidence that a [NAME] has determined that the stains cannot be removed, nor that the areas cannot be remedied by a [NAME] patch. The Tribunal is not therefore persuaded that because of the tenant’s damage, the [NAME] needs to be replaced.
d. From the landlord’s insurance claim and the successful reletting of the premises, the animal urine damage has not formed any part of the basis for the landlord’s claim. It has not been relevant to the Tribunal’s determination.
9. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
[NAME] 16 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429004 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429004 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord provided photographs showing faint red staining on the carpet.
- The landlord claimed that the stains were caused by the tenant and could not be removed.
- The landlord stated that the carpet was only eleven months old at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord mentioned that there was damage from pet urine causing an odor that took time to remove.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence that the stains required the replacement of the carpet.
- The landlord did not prove that they had suffered any financial loss due to the alleged damage.
- The landlord did not show that the insurance claim related to the stains had been accepted or that an excess had been paid.
- The landlord did not provide evidence that a professional had determined the stains could not be removed or remedied.
- The landlord did not demonstrate that the premises had been relet at a lower rent due to the alleged damage.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for compensation for damage to the carpet.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant caused damage to the carpet that required replacement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord's claim was dismissed because the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the damage on the balance of probabilities.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(2) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the requirement for the landlord to prove the damage on the balance of probabilities.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must provide clear and convincing evidence to prove their claim for compensation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of faint red staining, the landlord's insurance claim, and evidence of the premises being successfully relet without complaint of odor mattered.