Tenant ordered to contribute to carpet replacement costs
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, a tenant was ordered to contribute $200 from the bond to cover part of the landlord's insurance excess for carpet replacement. The Tribunal found that the tenant's cat contributed to the damage, even though the landlord's cats also had access to the premises.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must contribute to the cost of replacing a carpet damaged by their pet, even if the landlord's pets also had access to the premises.
📖 What the law says
This rule means that if one person involved in a tenancy agreement breaks the rules, the other person must do everything reasonable to reduce any harm or financial loss caused by that breach. This is similar to how contract law deals with reducing losses when a contract is broken.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to contribute $200 from the bond to cover part of the landlord's insurance excess for carpet replacement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to contribute $200 from the bond to cover part of the landlord's insurance excess for carpet replacement. The Tribunal found that the tenant's cat contributed to the damage, despite the landlord's cats also having access to the premises.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 1
[2025] NZTT 5106549
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Waitoki, RD 1, Waitoki 0871
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] as Trustee for [COMPANY], $200.00 from the bond.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $400.00 (6272502-002) immediately, apportioned as follows:
[NAME] as Trustee for [COMPANY]: $200.00
[NAME]: $200.00
Reasons:
3. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 2
The Claim
4. The landlord claims compensation of $400.00 from the tenant’s bond for the excess he paid on an insurance claim for replacement of carpet in the premises.
5. The remainder of the bond has been released to the parties under an agreement recorded in a Mediator’s Order in these proceedings dated 10 March 2025.
6. The landlord’s claim is that the carpet was damaged by urine and excrement from the tenant’s cat.
Background
7. The premises occupied by the tenant and the landlord’s residence are in close proximity.
8. The landlord has 2 cats. He says that he reluctantly agreed that the tenant could have a cat at the premises and the agreement records “Cats permitted: yes (one x cat – Simba)”.
9. The landlords’ cats had access to the tenant’s premises and the tenant’s cat had access to the landlord’s.
10. After the tenancy ended the landlord cleaned the carpets in the premises. His evidence is that it when showing the premises to prospective new tenants, a very strong animal odour was apparent. It was discovered that cat stains had penetrated the carpet and underlay to the extent that they could not be cleaned. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted and the affected part of the carpet in the premises was replaced. The landlord paid an excess of $400.00 for that claim.
11. The landlord says that he can be certain that the pet damage was caused by the tenant’s cat rather than his cats because:
a. his cats have never urinated or defecated in the premises at any other time; and
b. when the tenant’s father sadly passed, the tenant was away for five days. The landlord says he noticed the tenant’s cat, “doing somersaults” at the window of the premises in obvious distress. He investigated and found that the cat had being locked in and had visibly defecated over the carpets and must also have urinated on the carpets, being unable to get out.
12. The tenant’s position is that she denies having locked her cat in the premises while she was away after her father's death. She says that any carpet damage could equally have been caused by the landlord’s cats.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 3
Findings
13. The Tribunal is required to determine this claim on the balance of probabilities ie. what is more likely than not to have occurred, not beyond reasonable doubt. As this is the landlord’s claim, the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove the claim
14. Having heard the evidence, I cannot discount the possibility that the landlord’s cats urinated on the carpet. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have not done so before or since, but it is possible that the presence of the tenant’s cat, which was permitted by the agreement, triggered that response from them.
15. I fully accept that the tenant would not have intentionally locked her cat in the premises when she went away but her evidence is that she had arranged for friends to come and feed the cat and they may have inadvertently done so.
16. I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s direct evidence about what he witnessed on that occasion. That is direct evidence of damage caused to the carpet by the tenant’s cat.
17. Accordingly, while I do not find it proved on balance the tenant’s cat was wholly responsible for the damage to the carpet, requiring it to be replaced, I do find it proved on the balance that the tenants’ cat at least contributed to that damage.
18. In those circumstances I find it reasonable that the tenant makes a contribution to the cost incurred by the landlord in having the carpet replaced.
19. Finally, the tenant says that she should first have been given an opportunity to remedy the situation.
20. That is consistent with s.49 RTA which provides that “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
21. In these circumstances, applying s.49 might mean that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the tenant a chance to clean the carpet herself before getting in professionals and tasking her to pay for them. Here though, the evidence is that the effected carpet needed to be replaced. That is not something the landlord could reasonably be expected get the tenant to do, especially given that the replacement cost was covered by the landlord’s insurance – which is a mitigation of the loss.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 4
22. No order was made in respect of the filing fee
[NAME]
20 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5106549 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:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's cat contributed to the damage of the carpet.
- The landlord's cats also had access to the tenant's premises.
- The landlord paid an excess amount for the insurance claim related to the carpet replacement.
- The tenant should make a contribution to the cost of replacing the carpet.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant argues that she should have been given an opportunity to remedy the situation herself.
- The tenant claims that the carpet damage could have been caused by the landlord's cats.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was ordered to contribute $200 from the bond to cover part of the landlord's insurance excess for carpet replacement.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's cat was responsible for damaging the carpet and whether the tenant should contribute to the cost of replacing it.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant's cat contributed to the damage, and therefore the tenant should contribute to the cost of replacing the carpet.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's cat contributed to the damage, even though the landlord's cats also had access to the premises.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that if their pet damages the rental property, they may be required to contribute to the cost of repairs, even if the landlord's pets also had access to the premises.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the landlord's observations of the damage and the tenant's admission that the cat was present in the premises.