A landlord asked for compensation through a Tenancy Tribunal claim over the smell of urine caused by as many as 10 dogs "venturing" throughout the house. Photo / 123RF
When a landlord went to re-tenant their home, it smelt so strongly of dog urine that even replacing the carpet didn’t remove the odour.
Now, the Tenancy Tribunal has ordered tenants Robin Smith and Yang Soon Cho to pay $5845 to the landlord, whose name is suppressed.
The bulk of that relates to the cost of repainting the house, to remove the smell, and for lost rent while repairs were done.
While the landlord also claimed for other issues related to cleaning and other damage, many of those claims were dismissed, with the tribunal finding there was insufficient evidence to suggest it went beyond fair wear and tear.
The tribunal did award the landlords $198.50 for replacement of the kitchen waste disposal unit, which was found to have a cover plate from the sink in it, which caused it to jam, rust and burn the motor.
The tenancy at the Northcote house began on April 30, 2022, and ended on April 21, 2024, by mutual agreement.
One of the major issues the landlord had at the end of the tenancy was the smell and the staining on the carpet.
The landlord claims the tenants bred dogs at the house, and the dogs urinated on the floor, the smell from which delayed the landlord’s ability to re-tenant the premises quickly.
The landlord also claimed the tenants used the premises for an unlawful purpose and breached their obligation to occupy the premises principally for residential use by breeding dogs.
The landlord claims the tenants kept 10 dogs inside the premises, which urinated all over the floor.
The landlord replaced the carpet throughout the premises but claims this did not eliminate the smell, and therefore, they decided to paint the entire premises to eliminate it.
The landlord said they purchased the paint themselves for $2800.
The tenants told the tribunal they had three adult dogs at the house, and while accepting they bred puppies, they denied there were 10 dogs in the premises at once.
Instead, they claimed there was a maximum of eight dogs at any one time and they only bred the two female adult dogs in the last year of the tenancy, but not before that.
The tenants denied the house smelled like dog urine and claimed they protected the flooring by placing vinyl over the carpet.
They said the puppies were kept in a pen until 6 weeks old, when they were trained to go to the toilet on puppy pads, which were changed throughout the day.
The tenants claimed the puppies were sold at 8 weeks old and not kept inside the house for very long.
The tenants also claimed the dogs and puppies were only ever kept in the lounge and dining room, and any damage to the carpet was caused by water leaking from the roof.
However, tribunal adjudicator Lily Ryken said based on marketing photographs taken before the tenancy, it was clear the carpet was in a “markedly different” condition at the end of the tenancy.
“In the advertising photographs, the carpet in the bedrooms looks relatively old, but no discolouration or stains are present,” Ryken said.
“In contrast, the photographs of the carpet in the bedrooms at the end of the tenancy show significant discolouration and large stains.”
A quote from Carpet Mill, referring to the condition of the carpet, advised “full replacement of the existing carpet as it has dog urine stains in every room … The smell is pungent”.
Ryken said this supported the landlord’s claim that the tenants’ dogs did not stay only in the lounge and dining room, nor was the carpet protected by vinyl.
“On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the tenants’ dogs and puppies were allowed to venture throughout the premises and urinated on the floor in various parts of the house,” Ryken said.
She said the tenants gave evidence that they bred puppies in the last year of the tenancy, and both adult female dogs birthed one litter each, yielding approximately four to five puppies per litter.
“That equates to a total of approximately 8-10 puppies in the final year of the tenancy, all of whom were allowed to venture throughout the premises,” she said.
“This increases the likelihood that a significant amount of dog urine was deposited inside the premises during the tenancy and supports the landlord’s claim regarding the extent of the smell.”
Ryken said it was reasonable for the landlord to have needed to repaint the house.
But this didn’t mean she thought the landlords should be compensated for nine weeks’ lost rent.
While accepting the need to replace the carpet and repaint contributed to a delay in advertising and re-tenanting, she was not convinced the issues were the sole cause for the delay.
The landlords had also increased the rent from $800 per week to $850.
After the painting was done, the rent was dropped back to $800 per week and a tenant signed on shortly afterwards.
“This leads me to believe that the increased rent was most likely a contributing factor to the delay as well,” Ryken said.
She also found that it is typical to have a three- to four-week delay between tenancies.
“In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that compensation of four weeks’ rent at $800 per week reasonably reflects the delay attributed to the smell and damage caused by dog urine,” she said.
The landlord claimed the tenants were using the house for an “unlawful purpose” as the puppies weren’t registered. However, Ryken said the most common cases where tenants are found to have used premises for an unlawful purpose involve instances where they have used or manufactured drugs at the premises.
This caused damage to the property, and was serious criminal offending.
Failing to register a dog didn’t damage the premises, however, and was only subject to a fine.
She also didn’t think it was fair to say the property had been used for a commercial purpose, as there was no evidence as to the extent of the dog-breeding business.
The landlords claimed the tenants bred and sold birds at the premises, as well as dogs, suggesting there had been 10 dogs and 26 birds at the house.
However, the tenants denied this, and there was no supporting evidence to prove otherwise.
The tenants were ordered to pay the landlord $5845. This included $2800 for repainting, $2400 for lost rent, and the remainder for rubbish removal, lawns and garden work, and the replacement of the waste disposal unit.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.