What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996728?

The tribunal order states: Geoffrey Michael Rogers must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4996728?

Rent Credit: $39.29 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $2,698.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996728?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996728?

The tribunal order states: Geoffrey Michael Rogers must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4996728?

Rent Credit: $39.29 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $2,698.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996728?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 5, 1195 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4996728 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996728 — net $2,659.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to carpet	$2,698.84		9. I therefore find the tenant liable to pay the sum of $2,659.55 to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage.
Rent credit		$39.29	Rent credit
Total award	$2,698.84	$39.29
Net award	$2,659.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,659.55

A hearing of this matter was convened on 26 March 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and efforts to contact the tenant using the contact number provided were unsuccessful. I was satisfied that the hearing notice had been properly served on the tenant and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation in the sum of $2,998.25 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage to the carpet following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants are required at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. They must also, during the tenancy, replace worn-out smoke alarm batteries. Where damage to the premises is alleged, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Tenants are also liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent.

The landlord provided a detailed vacated property inspection report, photographic evidence, a tenancy statement, and invoices supporting the costs incurred. The evidence was compelling. It showed the premises were left in a very poor and unsanitary condition, with dog faeces found throughout the property. The tenant had moved faeces onto the balcony, but faeces remained inside and was ingrained into the carpet. There was rubbish strewn throughout the premises. The landlord also submitted that the strong odour and biohazard conditions necessitated a professional bio-clean, and that the carpet and underlay had to be replaced.

On the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with their obligations under section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. The property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, nor was all rubbish removed. This failure alone entitles the landlord to compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.

In relation to the carpet, I find that the damage to the carpet and underlay was more than fair wear and tear. The evidence established that the damage was due to ingrained faeces and odour from a dog. The tenant had not attended the hearing and therefore had not discharged the burden of proof. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the damage.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that the majority of the costs relate to the deep cleaning and carpet replacement. The landlord waived the cost of $299.41 for a minor clean, which I consider reasonable. The amount claimed therefore totalling $2,698.84 is supported by invoices and is not excessive in the circumstances.

The landlord had provided a rent summary showing that a rent credit ($39.29) is available and will be applied to the debt.

I therefore find the tenant liable to pay the sum of $2,659.55 to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage. The claim is proven.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996728 — net $2,659.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to carpet	$2,698.84		9. I therefore find the tenant liable to pay the sum of $2,659.55 to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage.
Rent credit		$39.29	Rent credit
Total award	$2,698.84	$39.29
Net award	$2,659.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,659.55

Order

Geoffrey Michael Rogers must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,659.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

A hearing of this matter was convened on 26 March 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and efforts to contact the tenant using the contact number provided were unsuccessful. I was satisfied that the hearing notice had been properly served on the tenant and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation in the sum of $2,998.25 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage to the carpet following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants are required at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. They must also, during the tenancy, replace worn-out smoke alarm batteries. Where damage to the premises is alleged, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Tenants are also liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent.
The landlord provided a detailed vacated property inspection report, photographic evidence, a tenancy statement, and invoices supporting the costs incurred. The evidence was compelling. It showed the premises were left in a very poor and unsanitary condition, with dog faeces found throughout the property. The tenant had moved faeces onto the balcony, but faeces remained inside and was ingrained into the carpet. There was rubbish strewn throughout the premises. The landlord also submitted that the strong odour and biohazard conditions necessitated a professional bio-clean, and that the carpet and underlay had to be replaced.
On the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with their obligations under section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. The property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, nor was all rubbish removed. This failure alone entitles the landlord to compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
In relation to the carpet, I find that the damage to the carpet and underlay was more than fair wear and tear. The evidence established that the damage was due to ingrained faeces and odour from a dog. The tenant had not attended the hearing and therefore had not discharged the burden of proof. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the damage.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the majority of the costs relate to the deep cleaning and carpet replacement. The landlord waived the cost of $299.41 for a minor clean, which I consider reasonable. The amount claimed therefore totalling $2,698.84 is supported by invoices and is not excessive in the circumstances.
The landlord had provided a rent summary showing that a rent credit ($39.29) is available and will be applied to the debt.
I therefore find the tenant liable to pay the sum of $2,659.55 to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage. The claim is proven.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996728 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 1195 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996728 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 1195 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions