Tenant Held Liable for Pet-Related Damages at End of Tenancy
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that a tenant was responsible for leaving the rented property clean and for damages caused by pets, even though the tenancy agreement banned pets. The Tribunal awarded compensation for specific damages, including a mattress and curtains.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and for any damage caused by their consented actions or those of others at the premises.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also requires the tenant to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish when they move out.
This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property. If that person does something that would break the tenancy agreement if the tenant had done it, the tenant is held accountable.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ruled on the condition of the premises at the end of a tenancy agreement, awarding compensation for certain damages.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and for damages caused by pets, even though the tenancy agreement prohibited pets. The Tribunal awarded compensation for specific damages, including a mattress and curtains.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 1
[2025] NZTT 5166581
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenants
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
2.
Description Landlord Tenant [NAME] $425.00 Replace mattress $500.00 Replace Curtains $65.00 Clean covers Replace chattels Replace kickboard
$100.00 $350.00 $100.00
Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,567.00 Bond $1,567.00 $673.00
3. [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of ( ) immediately apportioned as follows:
- $1,567.00
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [[NAME]] who appeared by teleconference.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
3. The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for a term from 16 September 2023 to 15 September 2024. The tenancy was managed by [The landlord’s agent] as the landlord’s agent.
4. The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024 so the landlord could move back into the property.
5. The property manager conducted an inspection on 1 December 2024. The inspection report notes “The property has been vacated in a reasonable clean and tidy condition.”
6. The landlord has chosen not to call evidence from the property manager who conducted that inspection and other regular inspections during the tenancy. The tenant says at each of those inspections too, the premises was found to be in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord has not provided copies of those earlier inspection reports.
7. At the end of the tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
8. The landlord says that when she moved back in she discovered that the premises smelled from dogs that the tenants had at the premises. She says there were large quantities of dog hair that an initial professional carpet clean did not remove. She says that her reaction to the dog hair was so severe she thought she was going to die.
9. The landlord claims that the contamination of the carpets, her mattress, curtains and chair covers is so extreme that they will need to be replaced.
10. The tenancy agreement provides that no pets are allowed.
11. Much of the dispute between the parties has focussed on whether or not the tenant breached the no pets provision in the agreement. The tenant acknowledges that one Husky dog and one Staffordshire terrier type dog visited regularly, perhaps once a week, but says that did not breach the agreement. The landlord insists that the dogs were living there and has provided a note from a neighbour saying, “I am the neighbour of [Tenancy address suppressed].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 3
I can confirm that [[NAME]], who were tenant during 2024, had 2 dogs at the property during their tenancy.”
12. With respect to the parties, that dispute is somewhat irrelevant. The question for the Tribunal to decide is whether the tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was met and whether damage was caused. If those obligations were breached, through dogs being at the premises with the tenants’ consent, the tenants are responsible, whether the dogs were living there or just visiting.
13. The tenant agrees to pay for the [NAME] costs as proved by the invoice provided by the landlord.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
14. 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 or animals at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
15. The evidence provided satisfies me that there was dog hair through the premises when the tenants vacated. That is shown from the photographs provided by the landlord. The landlord also brought to the hearing examples of the vacuum cleaner discharge showing what appears to be a significant amount of dog hair collected. The landlord also brought in the curtains and chair covers.
16. The question is whether the presence of that dog hair was such as to require replacement of all the property the landlord claims.
17. The carpet has had two professional cleaning treatments. The landlord says there is an unacceptable remaining smell and hair. The tenants dispute that. The claim of unacceptable odour in the carpet is not supported by the property manager’s final inspection report or inspections done during the tenancy. I do not find it proved that the carpet requires replacement because of the tenants’ breach and that claim is declined.
18. The tenant agrees to pay for replacement of the curtains as they are also stained. Replacement cost is $99.99. The compensation awarded allows for their depreciated value.
19. I find it proved that the chair covers were not left in acceptable condition but do not find it proved that they need to be replaced with new ones, I award a sum to allow for cleaning costs.
20. The landlord’s evidence is that she has already disposed of her mattress because it was not possible for her to sleep on it without reacting to the dog hairs. The photographs provided do show a large amount of dog hair on the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 4
underside of the mattress. On balance, I find it proved that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the mattress, as a consequence of the tenants’ breach. She should be compensated for that loss. The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The compensation amount awarded takes into account replacement cost and depreciation.
21. A kickboard in the kitchen is water damages and the landlord is entitled to have it replaced. The landlord has provided no evidence of the cost. $100.00 is allowed.
22. Especially having regard to the end of tenancy inspection report, I do not find any other damage proved beyond normal wear and tear.
Missing chattels
23. The landlord claims that several chattels that were at the property when the tenancy began, were not there when the tenancy ended.
24. There is no chattels list attached to the agreement but photographs provided do show some of them.
25. The tenant says that he has no recollection of using or losing the items the landlord claims to be missing but does not object to compensating the landlord for items that have gone astray.
26. The evidence satisfies me on balance that the following items belonging to the landlord needed to be replaced by her: garden rake, garden hose, 3 x floor mats. Allowing for the depreciated value of those items, compensation of $150.00 is awarded.
27. The head to the landlord’s vacuum cleaner was missing. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that she has been unable to get a replacement head so will need to buy another vacuum cleaner. Equivalent replacement cost is $299.00. Allowing for the depreciated value of the existing vacuum cleaner, $200.00 is awarded.
28. Because [The landlord/s] has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME] 17 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5166581 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:
-1559466545: [Bond number suppressed] 29314052: [[NAME]] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,567.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. 558135309: Landlord 750007235: $2,240.00 756636117: Tenants - $673.00
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenants acknowledged that dogs visited regularly but did not argue that this breached the no-pets clause.
- The presence of dog hair was proven, leading to the replacement of the mattress.
- The tenants agreed to compensate for the replacement of stained curtains.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim that the carpet required replacement due to odor and hair was not supported by evidence.
- The chair covers were not proven to need replacement; only cleaning costs were awarded.
- The tenants' obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was met according to the final inspection report.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that the tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for damages caused by pets, even though the tenancy agreement prohibited pets.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant had breached the no-pets policy and whether the tenant was responsible for the damages caused by pets at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the damages because the presence of dog hair required cleaning and replacement of certain items, despite the lack of clear evidence that the pets lived at the premises.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and for any damage caused by their consented actions or those of others at the premises.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for 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 ensure the premises are left clean and in good condition at the end of the tenancy, and they may be held responsible for damages caused by pets, even if the tenancy agreement prohibits pets.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the property, inspection reports, and invoices for cleaning and replacement costs were important pieces of evidence.