Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692169 — Cleanliness

Decided 20 Dec 2023 · Published 20 Dec 2023 · Application 4692169

Cleanliness
Property damage

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692169 — Cleanliness

Decided 20 Dec 2023 · Published 20 Dec 2023 · Application 4692169

Cleanliness
Property damage

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

G Barnett

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy ended on 16 August 2023. On 21 September 2023, the landlord filed a claim for cleaning, carpet cleaning, damage to a door, damage to the oven, and compensation for replacing a heat pump remote control. The application also refers to a claim for an insurance excess of $750.00. [The landlord’s representative] has advised that the landlord is, except for the insurance excess, no longer pursuing the claims. No evidence has been offered and the claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning, damage to a door, damage to the oven, and compensation for replacing a heat pump remote control are dismissed. This leaves the claim for the insurance excess. This relates to a pump to a septic tank. This claim however has already been heard before another adjudicator. [The landlord’s representative] states there has been an error and the insurance excess awarded by the Tribunal was less than that applying. The matter is not a new claim. I cannot simply award the shortfall. The proper course is for the landlord to make an application to re hear the previous claim and correct any error that may have been made. Details of how to do that are on the back of the Order.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tribunal exercises the discretion under section 95A (4) and orders suppression of both the landlord and tenants name and the address of the property.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Cleanliness Property damage NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s95A

Key findings

Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: property damage

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4692169 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4692169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9745349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.