Landlord shocked to be hit by costs for tenant's defecating dog
Landlords urgently need clarity on their rights over tenants, says the Foxton man appealing a Tenancy Tribunal ruling that a renter who let her dog urinate and defecate in the house does not have to pay $3000 damages - even though there was a no pets policy.
David Russ says it "beggars belief" he has to foot the bill for damage caused to his property by renter Amanda Stewart and her pet.
According to Russ, Stewart breached the terms of her lease by having animals in the house in the first place, which then urinated and defecated on the carpet, while the curtains stank to "high heaven" as the result of the dogs' waste.
He took her to the tribunal to recover $3000 in costs, however, the tribunal ruled in favour of Stewart who didn't have to pay a cent.
Tenancy Tribunal decision:
Apparently, dog damage, opps I meant "Acts of Dog", is now defined as a "peril", alongside floods, fire and earthquake.
Who would have thought:
Landlords urgently need clarity on their rights over tenants, says the Foxton man appealing a Tenancy Tribunal ruling that a renter who let her dog urinate and defecate in the house does not have to pay $3000 damages - even though there was a no pets policy.
David Russ says it "beggars belief" he has to foot the bill for damage caused to his property by renter Amanda Stewart and her pet.
According to Russ, Stewart breached the terms of her lease by having animals in the house in the first place, which then urinated and defecated on the carpet, while the curtains stank to "high heaven" as the result of the dogs' waste.
He took her to the tribunal to recover $3000 in costs, however, the tribunal ruled in favour of Stewart who didn't have to pay a cent.
Tenancy Tribunal decision:
Apparently, dog damage, opps I meant "Acts of Dog", is now defined as a "peril", alongside floods, fire and earthquake.
Who would have thought:
Comment