Renter’s scrap over cats, dog and carpet

A landlord has been awarded cleaning costs after the tenant broke the no-pet rule at her house and then cleaned the carpets herself with a Rug Doctor machine.

Charlie Timmons and Quinovic Property Management made counter claims against each other in the Porirua Tenancy Tribunal over cleaning, gardening and the unexpected entry of a contractor, among other matters.

Timmons confirmed she had kept one cat at the property throughout the tenancy, but a second cat had lived there for a month or so, while the family dog had also been present two or three days a week.

She claimed the pets were rarely in the home, and hired Rug Doctor equipment to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy, leaving them in what she believed was a reasonable condition.

However, the property manager argued there was dog hair on the carpets, several stains and burn marks on the carpets throughout the premises, cat faeces under a stairwell reportedly, fleas.

Quinovic claimed the tenant had also been instructed not to use Rug Doctor equipment. The stains and marks were not successfully removed and the carpets had been replaced.

The adjudicator, K Stirling, ruled that after reviewing the evidence, and given that the tenancy agreement prohibited pets at the property, Timmons should pay for carpet cleaning and flea treatment. Quinovic was given leave to make a separate claim for carpet replacement.

Timmons was also found liable for gardening work and other cleaning because the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy.

However, the tenant won back $20 for power usage after the property owners left a light on in a storage area, and $200 for a contractor unlawfully entering the property.

The contractor was hired to check the guttering, and told to arrange a time with the tenant.

But Timmons said she did not receive the contractor’s phone message, and was surprised when he entered without notice or consent. and,

She refused access because he was not carrying identification, and said that when he returned to do the work the next day, he again entered without notice and later was caught urinating in the back garden.

Quinovic said the contractor had knocked and poked his nose in the kitchen door to see if anyone was home.

The adjudicator was satisfied the contractor had entered the premises without giving the required notice, but the breach was not intentional.

‘‘I accept that some considerable distress was caused to the tenant by this incident and compensation of $200 is awarded.’’

Finally, Timmons claimed $720 in loss of earnings for five days of maintenance work to repair a leaky downstairs toilet, which disturbed her ability to do administration work at home.

The adjudicator sided with the landlord who noted the premises were not commercial in nature and therefore they could not be held liable for ‘‘business interruption’’.

For the various cleaning costs and rent arrears, Quinovic was awarded just over $1300 from Timmons’ bond.