A Christchurch tenant ordered to pay almost $5000 for damage and cleaning costs tried to dispute the claim over the type of animal excrement involved in the dirty dispute.
A Tenancy Tribunal order states that the tenants must pay Rentworks Property Management $4,936.99.
However, despite damning photographs which show the damage, the tenants disputed the claims in relation to both the timber and carpet flooring.
"[The tenants] tried to minimise the issue by arguing that something described by the landlord as dog poo, was in fact cat vomit," the order states.
However, it added: "That explanation overlooks the fact that there is clear evidence of animal excrement on the carpet. Just as her suggestion that another area of severe staining was dye from socks, rather than animal urine, ignores the obvious damage to the carpet and the tenant's responsibility for it."
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, it is law that a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided at the end of a tenancy.
However, the order found that the tenants, despite claiming they hired a professional for the job, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, nor did they remove all rubbish.
"The photographs speak for themselves," the order states.
The landlord lodged a claim for damage, including carpet and timber floor, an oven door, an LED light around a bed, a dented wall and skirtings, rain damage near a skylight, and ceiling damage in the main bedroom.
The landlord said the damage to the flooring was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not disprove liability. They said the timber floor damage happened early on when they had a puppy.
"Again, this does not excuse the damage and the fact that two different types of product were damaged points to an issue with the tenant's use rather than a defective product as the tenants seemed to imply," the order states.
"I have awarded the two excesses claimed for carpet replacement. However, I have only awarded one excess for the timber flooring.
"It was common ground that the tenants had paid an extra $10 per week to have pets at the property. The landlord has anticipated and been compensated for a degree of pet damage by the additional $10 per week. However, the $10 does not cover the degree of damage that has occurred and is beyond what one would expect even allowing for a pet."
Following the tenancy coming to an end, the landlord had to organise commercial cleaning for the property, which was covered by the landlord's contents insurance. The landlord was awarded $1000, the amount claimed, to cover this cost of excess.
The order comes amid a back-and-fourth ordeal between the parties, with the tenants claiming "personal attacks", delays in fixing issues with the property and entering the premises without consent or notice.
"These allegations stem from a change in personnel at the property management company engaged by the landlord. [One of the tenants] claims that the new employee was rude, aggressive, and unhelpful… [The tenant] claims that the employee yelled at her, was 'mean' and derogatory," the order states.
However, it added her claims lacked detail and particulars.
"The tenants did not point me to any correspondence or other corroborative evidence to establish a breach of the landlord's obligations in relation to access or quiet enjoyment. In contrast, the tenants submitted intemperate emails [the tenants] sent to the employee; one started 'you must be delusional'," the order states.
"The tenants said that it was unreasonable for the landlord to implement monthly inspections and those inspections breached their quiet enjoyment… The photographs show that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to begin more frequent inspections (and it was entitled to do so). The documenting of damage could also be seen as a prudent effort by the landlord to protect its insurance cover.
"In short, the tenants have not established their claims for improper access or breach of quiet enjoyment to the required civil standard. The claims are dismissed."
It also dismissed a claim about a stolen bond, stating: "It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the Croc shoe was left behind with the rubbish."
