Pet Damage in Rental Property: Tenancy Tribunal Case Study Costs Landlord Over $1,000

A recent Tenancy Tribunal decision in Hobsonville highlights the financial risks landlords can face when pet damage in a rental property occurs, even if those pets are allowed under the tenancy agreement. You can read the full decision here: Read Tribunal Case PDF 

The landlord sought compensation for carpet replacement after the tenants’ dog urinated throughout the property. While the tenants tried to contain the dog and clean the carpet, the Tribunal ultimately found them responsible for intentional damage and ordered them to pay over $1,100 in compensation. A reminder that landlord compensation for pets is not uncommon when damage exceeds acceptable limits.

Key Takeaways:

• Landlords can still claim for pet damage, even if pets are allowed.

• The Tribunal ruled the dog’s repeated urination was intentional damage.

• Tenants were ordered to pay over $1,100 after depreciation.

• Damage beyond wear and tear can lead to liability.

• Clear pet rules and regular inspections help prevent costly issues.

What Happened During the Tenancy

The tenancy began in May 2023 and ended in January 2025. The home was new in 2020, and the carpets were in excellent condition when the tenants moved in. The dog was permitted under the agreement, but both parties agreed it would stay on the ground floor. 

In practice, the dog was allowed to roam the entire property and urinated on the carpet in every room. While the stains were mostly visible under UV light, the Tribunal accepted the landlord’s video evidence and found the damage to be extensive. 

What the Tribunal Found

• The Tribunal found the damage to be more than just wear and tear. There were 40 stains on the top floor alone. 

• The tenants argued they had done their best to contain the dog, but the Tribunal disagreed. It found their inaction turned a careless issue into an intentional damage rental matter.

• The damage was deemed intentional because the tenants allowed the dog to continue urinating without effective action. 

• The landlord was awarded a portion of the carpet replacement cost, adjusted for depreciation. The carpet was halfway through its expected life, so the tenants were held liable for 25 percent of the replacement cost. 

Tribunal Decision and Compensation Awarded

The landlord was awarded $2,514.50 in total. After the bond of $1,400 was applied, the tenants were ordered to pay the remaining $1,114.50. This tenancy tribunal pets case highlights the importance of setting and enforcing clear boundaries in rental agreements.

What This Means for Landlords 

• If you allow pets, clearly state expectations in writing, including which parts of the property the animal is allowed in. 

• Keep regular inspection records and raise issues early if there are signs of damage. 

• Understand that even permitted pets can result in compensation claims if damage goes beyond normal wear and tear. 

• When damage is extensive or repeated, it may be considered intentional, even if the tenant did not mean to cause harm. 

Why Clear Pet Agreements Matter

This case shows the importance of setting clear boundaries with tenants who have pets. While many tenants are responsible pet owners, landlords need to protect their property investment by outlining expectations and responding early to signs of trouble. If not managed proactively, pet damage in a rental property can result in significant costs and legal complications.

You can also browse our guides and resources for practical tips on handling tenant issues, property damage, and pet-related clauses.

For more information about landlord rights and responsibilities, visit: 

• Tenancy Services – Damage and Repairs 

• Tenancy Services – Pets and Tenancies 

Need help managing pet clauses or setting up stronger tenancy agreements? Contact our team for advice tailored to your property. 

👉 Read the full Tribunal case PDF here