Tenants damage property; Chinese landlord wins, loses, then wins again! Simple facts, a complicated legal battle!

The tenants’ two poodles urinated throughout the rental property, forcing the landlord to replace the carpet.

 

Despite these simple facts, Chinese Auckland landlord Gary Guo endured a lengthy process of winning, losing, then winning again.

 

What does New Zealand law say?

 

How the case unfolded

 

Gary Guo’s rental property is in Titirangi, West Auckland. The tenants, married couple Gary and Lara Korck, moved in during 2017, at the end of April.

 

When they moved in, they assured Guo that the dogs were house-trained and would not urinate indiscriminately. As well as collecting the dogs’ faeces daily, the tenants agreed to have the carpet professionally cleaned every 6 months.

 

On 29 December 2017, the parties agreed to end the tenancy. At the handover, however, Guo found extensive staining on the carpet despite the house having been professionally cleaned.

 

Unable to agree on compensation, landlord Gary Guo took the tenants to the Tenancy Tribunal. He argued that they had allowed their two dogs to urinate in several rooms “over a long period”, causing substantial damage that required all the carpet to be replaced.

 

{Ad}

The central issue was whether the carpet staining amounted to intentional damage under the law. The Korcks admitted that their dogs had soiled the carpet but said this was not intentional.

 

The Tenancy Tribunal initially ruled in Guo’s favour, finding that the Korcks should be liable for the damage to the property.

 

The tenants appealed to the District Court, which overturned the Tribunal’s ruling. The court found that the carpet damage was not intentional and that, because the landlord had agreed under the tenancy agreement to allow dogs, the tenants should not be liable.

 

Guo challenged that decision by appealing to the High Court in Auckland.

 

Earlier this month, High Court Justice Tracey Walker overturned the District Court’s decision, finding that its judge had made an error of law.

 

Justice Tracey Walker emphasised that the tenants would have been virtually certain that damage from carpet soiling would occur, yet it continued.

 

 “In other words, given the pet poodles’ past urinating behaviour, if they were still allowed to roam freely indoors without restraint, they would certainly continue urinating and damaging the carpet. Should that carpet damage therefore be regarded as intentional?”

 

The High Court also noted the extent of the damage, saying it indicated that the tenants had not taken adequate steps to prevent it.

 

Justice Walker said: “Once the dogs had urinated inside several times, the Korcks should have known that allowing them to remain inside would certainly cause further damage.” “The damage could have been mitigated, but it was not.”

 

The High Court said that although the landlord had agreed to the tenants keeping dogs at home and acknowledged that this could cause greater damage, the tenants still had a duty to prevent the dogs from damaging the property. The damage to the carpet in this case exceeded fair wear and tear.

 

Ultimately, the High Court ordered the Korcks to pay landlord Gary Guo NZ$10,000 in compensation and NZ$1180 in High Court costs.