What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098394 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5098394?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098394?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11396319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098394 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5098394?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098394?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11396319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 18 Pine Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098394 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098394 — net $947.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$460.00	12. The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the carpets required cleaning and flea treatment at the end of…
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$947.00
Bond	$1,597.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant is to pay Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar $947.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,597.00 (6499493-001) immediately apportioned as follows: a. Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar: $947.00 b. The tenant: $650.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for: a. Cleaning and flea treating the carpet. b. Painting repairs to two areas of walls. c. The insurance excess for careless damage to cabinetry adjacent to the dishwasher.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. Carpet cleaning and treatment
The tenancy was of a brand-new house and lasted just over a year. With the agreement of the landlord, the tenant kept two long-haired cats at the property.
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. After the tenancy had ended on 13 September 2024, an exit inspection was completed on 19 September 2024. A copy of the report was submitted in evidence. b. The carpet smelt of animal odour and there was cat hair throughout. c. The property manager witnessed fleas at the property and was contacted by two contractors regarding a flea problem. An email from one of the contractors dated 10 October 2024 was included in evidence. d. The landlord provided photographs of the carpet in one bedroom which she claimed showed brown staining that required cleaning. e. The landlord had the carpets cleaned and treated for fleas at the same time by the same contractor. f. Clause 17 of the additional terms to the tenancy agreement provided: “Pet Clause - Professional cleaning - The tenant agrees to have the carpet and home professionally cleaned upon vacate to remove and get gander and odour.”
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. There was no evidence of a flea problem at any time during the tenancy. It was not raised at any routine inspection and they were not aware of the issue. b. They were only notified of the issue three weeks after the end of the tenancy. The tenant maintained that fleas could not survive without a host animal and so they could not have come from the tenant’s cats. c. The tenant was not given an opportunity to remedy this issue.
The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the carpets required cleaning and flea treatment at the end of the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The term in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The tenant did not have the carpets professionally cleaned as required. b. The property and carpets were new at the start of the tenancy and it is therefore very unlikely that there was a flea issue at the start of the tenancy. c. Flea eggs are dropped in the carpet and may only have become evident some days or weeks after the tenancy had ended. d. The landlord is not under any legal obligation to allow the tenant to remedy the issue after the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed by the landlord is fair and reasonable and this sum is awarded. Wall repairs
The landlord provided photographic evidence of wall damage in one bedroom and the laundry area of the garage.
The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. While not denying liability, the tenant queried the cost of having the damage repaired.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, the Tribunal is persuaded that the landlord should be reimbursed for the amount claimed for the following reasons: a. The damage is careless damage, not intentional damage and it is not fair wear and tear. b. Given that this was a new property at the start of the tenancy, it was appropriate that the repairs be undertaken to a tradespersonlike standard. c. It is not appropriate to deduct any amount for depreciation or betterment as the work has only returned the walls to the same condition as the other walls. d. The repairs were limited to preparing and filling the areas before patch painting. e. The amount charged is reasonable. Damage to cabinetry in the kitchen
The landlord provided photographic evidence of water damage to cabinetry in the kitchen. The landlord claimed that this was careless damage caused by the tenant’s failure to stop the water damage occurring. The landlord claimed that the damage may have been caused by a leak from the tenant’s fridge.
The tenant denied that they had done anything to cause the water damage. The tenant gave evidence that: a. There was no catastrophic event that caused the damage. b. It was not noticed by the tenant during the tenancy. c. It was not noticed by the landlord on regular inspections. d. The cabinetry surrounded the dishwasher and may have been caused by a leak from the appliance. While accepting that the dishwasher was new, the tenant noted that there had been issues with other appliances of the landlord during the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, the landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the actions or inaction of the tenant have caused the damage to the cabinetry. The landlord’s belief that the damage was caused by the tenant is no more than a reasoned assumption. It is not impossible that a new dishwasher may malfunction and leak. Even an imperceptible leak can cause the damage that happened to this cabinetry.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098394 — net $947.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$460.00	12. The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the carpets required cleaning and flea treatment at the end of…
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$947.00
Bond	$1,597.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant is to pay Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar $947.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,597.00 (6499493-001) immediately apportioned as follows: a. Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar: $947.00 b. The tenant: $650.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for: a. Cleaning and flea treating the carpet. b. Painting repairs to two areas of walls. c. The insurance excess for careless damage to cabinetry adjacent to the dishwasher.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. Carpet cleaning and treatment
The tenancy was of a brand-new house and lasted just over a year. With the agreement of the landlord, the tenant kept two long-haired cats at the property.
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. After the tenancy had ended on 13 September 2024, an exit inspection was completed on 19 September 2024. A copy of the report was submitted in evidence. b. The carpet smelt of animal odour and there was cat hair throughout. c. The property manager witnessed fleas at the property and was contacted by two contractors regarding a flea problem. An email from one of the contractors dated 10 October 2024 was included in evidence. d. The landlord provided photographs of the carpet in one bedroom which she claimed showed brown staining that required cleaning. e. The landlord had the carpets cleaned and treated for fleas at the same time by the same contractor. f. Clause 17 of the additional terms to the tenancy agreement provided: “Pet Clause - Professional cleaning - The tenant agrees to have the carpet and home professionally cleaned upon vacate to remove and get gander and odour.”
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. There was no evidence of a flea problem at any time during the tenancy. It was not raised at any routine inspection and they were not aware of the issue. b. They were only notified of the issue three weeks after the end of the tenancy. The tenant maintained that fleas could not survive without a host animal and so they could not have come from the tenant’s cats. c. The tenant was not given an opportunity to remedy this issue.
The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the carpets required cleaning and flea treatment at the end of the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The term in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The tenant did not have the carpets professionally cleaned as required. b. The property and carpets were new at the start of the tenancy and it is therefore very unlikely that there was a flea issue at the start of the tenancy. c. Flea eggs are dropped in the carpet and may only have become evident some days or weeks after the tenancy had ended. d. The landlord is not under any legal obligation to allow the tenant to remedy the issue after the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed by the landlord is fair and reasonable and this sum is awarded. Wall repairs
The landlord provided photographic evidence of wall damage in one bedroom and the laundry area of the garage.
The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. While not denying liability, the tenant queried the cost of having the damage repaired.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, the Tribunal is persuaded that the landlord should be reimbursed for the amount claimed for the following reasons: a. The damage is careless damage, not intentional damage and it is not fair wear and tear. b. Given that this was a new property at the start of the tenancy, it was appropriate that the repairs be undertaken to a tradespersonlike standard. c. It is not appropriate to deduct any amount for depreciation or betterment as the work has only returned the walls to the same condition as the other walls. d. The repairs were limited to preparing and filling the areas before patch painting. e. The amount charged is reasonable. Damage to cabinetry in the kitchen
The landlord provided photographic evidence of water damage to cabinetry in the kitchen. The landlord claimed that this was careless damage caused by the tenant’s failure to stop the water damage occurring. The landlord claimed that the damage may have been caused by a leak from the tenant’s fridge.
The tenant denied that they had done anything to cause the water damage. The tenant gave evidence that: a. There was no catastrophic event that caused the damage. b. It was not noticed by the tenant during the tenancy. c. It was not noticed by the landlord on regular inspections. d. The cabinetry surrounded the dishwasher and may have been caused by a leak from the appliance. While accepting that the dishwasher was new, the tenant noted that there had been issues with other appliances of the landlord during the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, the landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the actions or inaction of the tenant have caused the damage to the cabinetry. The landlord’s belief that the damage was caused by the tenant is no more than a reasoned assumption. It is not impossible that a new dishwasher may malfunction and leak. Even an imperceptible leak can cause the damage that happened to this cabinetry.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For David Wang Lydia Colmar has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098394 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 18 Pine Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098394 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 18 Pine Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions