What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067830 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5067830?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067830?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11428201-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067830 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5067830?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067830?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11428201-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067830 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067830 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Diane Astle Realty Limited As Agent For Owner $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Diane Astle Realty Limited As Agent For Owner: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,000.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 29 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and are they liable for damage to the premises?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims compensation for carpet cleaning ($200) and carpet replacement ($1,466) in the lounge, alleging yellow stains at the end of the tenancy. While initially referring to stains in the lounge, dining room, and sunroom, the landlord clarified that she sought carpet replacement only in the lounge, acknowledging that the dining room stain was mostly removed by professional cleaning and that the sunroom carpet already had sun damage.
The landlord relied on black-and-white photos of the lounge carpet and stated she used a pet urine detector, which allegedly showed evidence of urine via white patches in the photos. However, the photos provided were unclear, and no coloured photographs were available to better substantiate the claim. Additionally, the pet detector evidence was not supported by a qualified professional opinion, such as a carpet cleaner or specialist, and no infrared scan was conducted at the start of the tenancy to establish a baseline condition.
The tenants strongly refuted the claim that they had pets, stating they were fully aware of the no-pet condition in their tenancy agreement. The landlord’s assertion of pet damage remains speculative in the absence of credible, clear evidence linking the alleged stains to tenants’ conduct.
One of the tenants’ provided a photograph purportedly showing pre-existing damage to the lounge carpet during her parent’s prior occupancy of the property. Upon review, aside from the acknowledged circular marks or sun holes, there appeared to be additional areas of surface discoloration that could indicate staining. This suggests that the carpet exhibited signs of damage or wear and tear prior to the current tenancy.
In contrast, the landlord has presented a black-and-white photograph dated 1 August 2023, taken a month after the tenancy commenced, to assert the absence of yellow marks. However, the use of black-and-white imagery is inadequate for accurately depicting certain types of damage, such as colour- specific stains. Colour photographs are essential in capturing the true condition of the carpet, as they provide clear evidence of discoloration or staining that black-and-white photos cannot convey. Therefore, the black-and-white photograph does not serve as reliable evidence to refute the presence of pre- existing damage.
Regarding the age of the carpet, the landlord was unable to confirm its exact age but acknowledged that it likely exceeded half of its estimated lifespan, possibly nearing the end of its useful life. This factor is important because the Tribunal is required to account for depreciation when determining compensation.
The burden of proof lies with the applicant landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, their claim. Given the current evidence, I find the landlord’s case for carpet replacement costs falls short. The landlord has not provided sufficient proof to establish that the stains were caused by tenant’s misconduct rather than fair wear and tear or pre-existing issues. Additionally, the advanced age of the carpet and lack of clear evidence regarding its condition at the start of the tenancy weigh against awarding any compensation.
The claim for carpet cleaning costs of $200 has been proved. The claim for carpet replacement costs is dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to account for depreciation. Filing fee and Suppression order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. Section 102 RTA.
Under section 95 of the RTA, the Tribunal has the discretion to grant suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim or defence. Since the landlord has not been successful to that extent, they are not entitled to suppression. However, given that the tenants have successfully defended the larger portion of the landlord’s claim, particularly in terms of monetary value, it is reasonable to grant name suppression in this case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067830 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Diane Astle Realty Limited As Agent For Owner $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Diane Astle Realty Limited As Agent For Owner: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,000.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 29 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and are they liable for damage to the premises?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims compensation for carpet cleaning ($200) and carpet replacement ($1,466) in the lounge, alleging yellow stains at the end of the tenancy. While initially referring to stains in the lounge, dining room, and sunroom, the landlord clarified that she sought carpet replacement only in the lounge, acknowledging that the dining room stain was mostly removed by professional cleaning and that the sunroom carpet already had sun damage.
The landlord relied on black-and-white photos of the lounge carpet and stated she used a pet urine detector, which allegedly showed evidence of urine via white patches in the photos. However, the photos provided were unclear, and no coloured photographs were available to better substantiate the claim. Additionally, the pet detector evidence was not supported by a qualified professional opinion, such as a carpet cleaner or specialist, and no infrared scan was conducted at the start of the tenancy to establish a baseline condition.
The tenants strongly refuted the claim that they had pets, stating they were fully aware of the no-pet condition in their tenancy agreement. The landlord’s assertion of pet damage remains speculative in the absence of credible, clear evidence linking the alleged stains to tenants’ conduct.
One of the tenants’ provided a photograph purportedly showing pre-existing damage to the lounge carpet during her parent’s prior occupancy of the property. Upon review, aside from the acknowledged circular marks or sun holes, there appeared to be additional areas of surface discoloration that could indicate staining. This suggests that the carpet exhibited signs of damage or wear and tear prior to the current tenancy.
In contrast, the landlord has presented a black-and-white photograph dated 1 August 2023, taken a month after the tenancy commenced, to assert the absence of yellow marks. However, the use of black-and-white imagery is inadequate for accurately depicting certain types of damage, such as colour- specific stains. Colour photographs are essential in capturing the true condition of the carpet, as they provide clear evidence of discoloration or staining that black-and-white photos cannot convey. Therefore, the black-and-white photograph does not serve as reliable evidence to refute the presence of pre- existing damage.
Regarding the age of the carpet, the landlord was unable to confirm its exact age but acknowledged that it likely exceeded half of its estimated lifespan, possibly nearing the end of its useful life. This factor is important because the Tribunal is required to account for depreciation when determining compensation.
The burden of proof lies with the applicant landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, their claim. Given the current evidence, I find the landlord’s case for carpet replacement costs falls short. The landlord has not provided sufficient proof to establish that the stains were caused by tenant’s misconduct rather than fair wear and tear or pre-existing issues. Additionally, the advanced age of the carpet and lack of clear evidence regarding its condition at the start of the tenancy weigh against awarding any compensation.
The claim for carpet cleaning costs of $200 has been proved. The claim for carpet replacement costs is dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to account for depreciation. Filing fee and Suppression order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. Section 102 RTA.
Under section 95 of the RTA, the Tribunal has the discretion to grant suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim or defence. Since the landlord has not been successful to that extent, they are not entitled to suppression. However, given that the tenants have successfully defended the larger portion of the landlord’s claim, particularly in terms of monetary value, it is reasonable to grant name suppression in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067830 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067830 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions