Landlords can't expect spotless carpets after three years, Tenancy Tribunal rules

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

A Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator ruled staining on a Christchurch rental's lounge carpet was fair wear and tear after almost three years of occupation. (Stock image)

Landlords cannot expect carpets to remain in as-new condition after years of everyday living, the Tenancy Tribunal says after dismissing a claim for almost $450 to remove a stain in the lounge.

Adjudicator T Prowse found staining on a lounge carpet after an almost three-year tenancy amounted to fair wear and tear rather than tenant damage.

Christchurch property owner Diana Watts, whose rental was managed by Wolfbrook Property Management, claimed $449.94 for specialist stain removal and carpet cleaning after the tenants moved out of her Addington unit. The tenants denied responsibility, saying they had already paid for commercial cleaners before leaving.

After the final inspection identified a mark on a wall, a blocked shower drain and two carpet stains, the tenants returned to clean the property again.

Although they described the property manager’s requests as “zealous”, they cleaned the wall and drain and used stain remover on the carpet before handing the keys back.

Prowse said the landlord had failed to prove the stain was anything more than ordinary wear and tear.

The lounge was the only practical place for the tenants to eat because the unit had no dining area. Given three years of meals and foot traffic, “it is to be expected that there would be some staining on the lounge carpet”, the adjudicator said.

The decision also noted the tenants had passed regular inspections, paid for professional cleaning themselves and returned to address issues raised after the inspection.

“These are not the actions of tenants who do not care about the condition of the property,” Prowse wrote. The adjudicator added that while a landlord might choose to restore a carpet at their own expense to maximise its lifespan, that did not mean a tenant should automatically pay the bill.

The tenants also argued home carpet has an Inland Revenue depreciation life of eight years, meaning the three-year-old carpet had already lost almost half its value.

Prowse also questioned the amount charged to treat the stain.

The decision described the $391.25 plus GST charge for stain treatment as “very high” compared with similar claims regularly seen by the tribunal.

Prowse also noted the property manager confirmed it routinely used the same cleaning company, part-owned by one of the firm’s owners, without seeking other quotes.

The tribunal dismissed the claim and ordered the tenants’ $2000 bond be released in full.