How much money was awarded in case 5021008?

Names And Identifying Details. 2. [T…: $275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021008?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11303979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5021008?

Names And Identifying Details. 2. [T…: $275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021008?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11303979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36A Vera Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021008 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021008 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021008. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Ro	$275.00		names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Ro

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Roshkov $275.00.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $275.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Roshkov immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone.

The tenancy ended on 12 September 2024.

There was no dispute that the tenants were good tenants and left the premises clean and tidy. However, there remained a dispute over whether the tenants should pay for carpet cleaning and deodorising.

Tenants are not usually responsible for cleaning carpets at the end of a tenancy but sometimes it is necessary because of soiling or odours.

In this instance, the property manager said that she had noticed during inspections that there were strong smells from cooking, but she assumed that once the premises were vacated, the smell would have gone. When she conducted the final inspection on 17 September, she found that there remained a strong pungent odour. She therefore had the carpets cleaned and deodorised before the next tenant moved in on 21 September.

The property manager produced an email from the new tenant saying that when she moved in the smell in the premises had reduced from when she had first seen the property. She was still unhappy with the smell but the owner and property manager did not believe it had lingered. They felt that the carpet clean had resolved the issue.

The tenants were upset to discover that they were being charged $275 for carpet cleaning. They said that the issue had not been raised at any of the inspections and that at the end of the tenancy, the property manager had told them that they would be told of any issues before money was spent. They had cleaned the property thoroughly and felt that if the property manager had conducted the exit inspection the day they moved out or the next day, there would have been no issue. The property had been shut for a few days before she inspected it. They were also offended to be told that the property smelt and felt that they were being discriminated against.

The landlord explained that she wanted to get the carpet cleaned as soon as possible because there was a new tenant moving in. She wanted to make it clear that no offence was meant and she apologised if the tenants felt offended.

It is understandable that the tenants feel insulted on being told that the property smelt. However, it is no reflection on their standards. It is just unfortunate that sometimes a property can smell at the end of a tenancy. Often it is because someone has kept pets in the house. It may have been cleaned thoroughly but the odour is apparent to anyone else who has not been living there.

Based on the evidence of the property manager and the email from the next tenant, I am satisfied that the carpet needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy to reduce the residual cooking smells in the property.

An invoice was submitted for $275 for cleaning and deodorising the premises. The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord agreed to the tenants having name suppression and waived the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021008. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Ro	$275.00		names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Ro

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Roshkov $275.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $275.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vicky Roshkova & Ivan Roshkov immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone.
The tenancy ended on 12 September 2024.
There was no dispute that the tenants were good tenants and left the premises clean and tidy. However, there remained a dispute over whether the tenants should pay for carpet cleaning and deodorising.
Tenants are not usually responsible for cleaning carpets at the end of a tenancy but sometimes it is necessary because of soiling or odours.
In this instance, the property manager said that she had noticed during inspections that there were strong smells from cooking, but she assumed that once the premises were vacated, the smell would have gone. When she conducted the final inspection on 17 September, she found that there remained a strong pungent odour. She therefore had the carpets cleaned and deodorised before the next tenant moved in on 21 September.
The property manager produced an email from the new tenant saying that when she moved in the smell in the premises had reduced from when she had first seen the property. She was still unhappy with the smell but the owner and property manager did not believe it had lingered. They felt that the carpet clean had resolved the issue.
The tenants were upset to discover that they were being charged $275 for carpet cleaning. They said that the issue had not been raised at any of the inspections and that at the end of the tenancy, the property manager had told them that they would be told of any issues before money was spent. They had cleaned the property thoroughly and felt that if the property manager had conducted the exit inspection the day they moved out or the next day, there would have been no issue. The property had been shut for a few days before she inspected it. They were also offended to be told that the property smelt and felt that they were being discriminated against.
The landlord explained that she wanted to get the carpet cleaned as soon as possible because there was a new tenant moving in. She wanted to make it clear that no offence was meant and she apologised if the tenants felt offended.
It is understandable that the tenants feel insulted on being told that the property smelt. However, it is no reflection on their standards. It is just unfortunate that sometimes a property can smell at the end of a tenancy. Often it is because someone has kept pets in the house. It may have been cleaned thoroughly but the odour is apparent to anyone else who has not been living there.
Based on the evidence of the property manager and the email from the next tenant, I am satisfied that the carpet needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy to reduce the residual cooking smells in the property.
An invoice was submitted for $275 for cleaning and deodorising the premises. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord agreed to the tenants having name suppression and waived the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021008 — Cleanliness at 36A Vera Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021008 — Cleanliness at 36A Vera Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions