MEYER & ANOR v HICKMAN & ANOR (Residential Tenancies)

Meyer and another brought a claim against Hickman and another for damage to the carpet of a residential property. The lessors sought to recover the cost of replacement of the carpet, alleging that the carpet was damaged by stains and a smell from dog urine, which they attributed to the actions of the lessees. The case was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the damage to the carpet was caused by the actions of the lessees, specifically the urine of their dog. The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by both parties, including the inspections of the property, photographs, and expert reports. The Tribunal had to determine whether the stains and smell were indeed caused by dog urine, and if so, whether the lessees were responsible for the damage.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of stains or a smell from dog urine. The Tribunal was satisfied that the damage to the carpet was not caused by the actions of the lessees. The Tribunal ordered that $199 of the disputed sum be released to the lessors, and the remainder to the tenants. The Tribunal did not find the claim for damage to the carpet established.