Many rural employers provide accommodation to staff as part of an employment package.

Recently a controversial decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, where a tenant's dog ruined the carpets of a rental property, has been overturned on appeal to the District Court. This decision will be of interest to many in the rural sector.

The case involved a tenant's dog urinating on carpet in a rental property. The damage was such that the carpets throughout the house had to be replaced. The Tenancy Tribunal found the tenant wasn't liable for the damage caused as it wasn't intentional. The tenancy agreement stated no pets were allowed.

The decision was overturned on appeal in the District Court. The tenant was ordered to pay for carpet replacement costs, court costs and lost rent. The judge was of the view that the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator was wrong for finding that the tenant wasn't responsible because the damage was unintentional.