Tenant Held Liable for Pet Dog Damage to Rental Property

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 1

[2025] NZTT 5158571, 5153281

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WAITAKERE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAITĀKERE

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] and [NAME] must pay [NAME] and [NAME] $1,114.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (6491216-012) to [NAME] and [NAME] immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Replace furnishings: carpet $2,487.50 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $2,514.50 Bond $1,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $1,114.50

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing: [NAME] attended as the tenants, and [NAME] and [NAME] attended for the landlord.

2. The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing the entire carpet of their rental property, which has been damaged by the tenants’ dog

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 2

urinating on it. The landlord is seeking refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

3. The tenants are seeking the refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

An outline of the law

4. 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 and pets at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 damage

9. The landlord bought the property brand new in January 2020. The carpet was installed at this time, and so was five years old by the end of the tenancy.

10. This tenancy began on 27 May 2023 and ended on 31 January 2025. It is not disputed that the carpets at the beginning of this tenancy were in excellent condition.

11. The tenants’ dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement, but there was an intention from both parties that the dog would be kept on the ground floor and

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 3

wouldn’t go to either the first or the second floor. The tenants accept that this did not eventuate; the dog did go throughout the house, and in doing so urinated on the carpet in every room.

12. The landlord stated that there were approximately 40 “stains” on the top floor, fewer on the middle floor, and 20 – 30 “stains” on the ground floor. I put quotation marks around the word stains, because they are mostly visible under black-light or ultra-violet light conditions. The landlord produced a video of the carpet under normal light conditions and under black-light which shows the “stains” much more clearly. If anything, the landlord’s videos show that the landlord’s estimate of number of stains may have been conservative.

13. Carpet cleaning during and after the tenancy was not fully successful in removing the stains. Because of this, I determine that the urine stains amount to damage of the carpet.

14. The landlord produced a letter from a carpet cleaner which describes the carpet as being in much worse condition than the landlord claimed today. Given I have the landlord’s own version of events today, there is little need for me to give much weight to this untested information, which the tenants disagree strongly with.

15. I determine the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear.

16. The tenants claim that because they did their best to contain their dog, their actions were not intentional and were not careless. The tenants produced photographs of the carpet before and after cleaning, and photographs of gates in the house that may have been used in an attempt to contain their dog.

17. There are simple measures that can be used to effectively contain a dog or a cat in a house, such as closing doors or making a secure area outside. I do not agree with the tenants’ view that they did everything possible to contain their dog. If their dog had urinated, once, twice or even several times on the carpet, I would be prepared to consider this to be carelessness. However, the dog has urinated throughout the whole house, dozens and dozens of times. Because the tenants failed to address the dog’s behaviour when it was at a careless level, I consider the culpability has increased, and the damage is well into the level of being intentional.

18. The photographs and videos under normal light, produced by both parties show some yellow staining on the medium to dark grey-brown carpet. On the whole though, the carpets still look to be in good condition.

19. The tenants say that the carpet was cleaned twice, after which there was no noticeable odour of dog urine. They also say that at the inspections towards the end of the tenancy, no issue was raised by the landlord about the smell of urine. Despite the landlord’s letter from the carpet cleaner mentioned above, the landlord did not pursue the issue of an odour of urine.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 4

20. The carpet is still in the premises, and the premises has been re-tenanted at the same price that these tenants had been paying. There was no mention of any complaint from the new tenants.

21. In the final analysis I find the damage to the carpet proved and the damage to be intentional.

Compensation

22. The landlord has a quotation to replace the carpet and the carpet underlay at a cost of $9,950.00.

23. 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.

24. The carpet is now more than five years old. According to the Inland Revenue Department’s document IR265 General Depreciation Rates, a carpet is a chattel that depreciates over an expected life span of 8 years. Because the house was occupied by the owners for the first period of time and the carpet was in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy, I consider it reasonable to extend that period by two years. The carpet is therefore half-way through it’s expected life span and has an approximate value of 50% of its replacement cost.

25. I also consider that the carpet, although damaged is still usable today, particularly in a rental setting. Whereas the tenants have accelerated the damage to the carpet, the carpet is not yet at the end of its life.

26. I determine that the tenants are liable for damage that amounts to 50% of the carpet’s residual value, or 25% of its replacement value.

27. The amount ordered is proved.

28. [NAME] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

C Lamdin

16 April 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 5

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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158571 6

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: