What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138669 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 5138669?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138669?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11472035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138669 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 5138669?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138669?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11472035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138669 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138669 — net $273.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$50.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$300.00	$27.00
Net award	$273.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$273.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $273.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wanaka Home Rentals Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,727.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 19 February 2025.
The tenancy ran from 8 September 2023 to 8 September 2024. The tenants applied for refund of the bond of $3,000.00 on 20 January 2025. The tenants also claim the landlord did not have grounds to terminate the tenancy. Termination without grounds
The termination notice has not been provided, but I understand the reason given was that the owners wished to use the premises as their principal residence. The tenant says that the property was rented out again several weeks after the end of the tenancy. The property was readvertised from about 7 January 2025.
The owner was called towards the end of the hearing and explained that they had extended the tenancy, at the tenant’s request, from the expiry date of 8 September 2024. They moved back to the property after the tenancy ended on 15 December 2024. They had arranged for their furniture and enrolled their daughter in daycare in advance and were committed to the move. Their employment opportunities then changed, and they had to relocate to Queenstown. They did not consider it was possible to commute daily between Wanaka and Queenstown.
There is some evidence on the file supporting the owners’ evidence (which I accept) that they had intended to move back to Wanaka permanently, for example, a document relating to childcare. From the tenant’s perspective this may have looked as though the landlords had terminated the tenancy so that they could re-let the premises. However, I am satisfied, on the available evidence, that the landlord had grounds to terminate the tenancy and exercised that right for genuine reasons. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
As to cleaning, the tenants had permission for a dog. The landlord’s inspection photographs taken on 16 December 2024 show dog hair at the join between the carpet and the skirting boards and in the hot water cupboard. The owner said there was visible hair where the carpet met the wall and a dog odour on hot days. They arranged for further carpet cleaning to be performed, and this removed the pet hair from the carpet and improved the odour.
I recognise that the tenant performed cleaning, including carpet cleaning, before vacating. The tenant provided written statements from family members and friends confirming that extensive cleaning was performed and stating their opinion that the property was left in a reasonably clean condition.
In my view the photographs show a property that was in most respects reasonably clean. Some surfaces probably needed a further wipe down, such as the stove top, a bathroom vanity, and possibly the toilet. My general impression, however, is that the difference between the cleaning performed by the tenant and the cleaning paid for by the landlord mostly reflects the difference between a reasonable standard of cleanliness and a professional standard. For example, if the tenant failed to dust some skirting boards, the top of a power socket or some window ledges, it does not necessarily mean the required standard was not met overall.
The landlord noted that the living room and kitchen floors were sticky and dirty, as noted on the cleaning invoice. The photographs do not really support this. It may be that some of the cleaning performed by the tenant caused the stickiness or that some of the cleaning needed a further touch up, for example the “streaky” shower glass and mirror. The photographs provided seem not to show other areas identified in the invoice, for example, dusty shelves in the living room and grease on the kitchen backsplash (which is not to say the cleaning was unnecessary).
The landlord’s photographs do show that there was an issue with pet hair in the carpet and in the hot water cupboard, and in these respects (plus the areas identified above) I consider the premises were not reasonably clean. Having been allowed a pet, the tenants could reasonably be expected to ensure the carpets and floors were free of hair and odour.
I award the carpet cleaning costs of $250.00 and award $50.00 towards the cleaning cost of $200.00, reflecting 1 hour of cleaning. The bond is apportioned and refunded accordingly. Other issues
In the application form the tenant alleged that the landlord had spoken ill of them to potential new landlords. This was denied. There is no cogent evidence to support this part of the claim, assuming it is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Filing fee and suppression
The tenants’ application has been partly successful. They had to come to the Tribunal to recover the bond. I award the filing fee.
I grant name suppression as requested by the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138669 — net $273.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$50.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$300.00	$27.00
Net award	$273.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$273.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $273.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wanaka Home Rentals Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,727.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 19 February 2025.
The tenancy ran from 8 September 2023 to 8 September 2024. The tenants applied for refund of the bond of $3,000.00 on 20 January 2025. The tenants also claim the landlord did not have grounds to terminate the tenancy. Termination without grounds
The termination notice has not been provided, but I understand the reason given was that the owners wished to use the premises as their principal residence. The tenant says that the property was rented out again several weeks after the end of the tenancy. The property was readvertised from about 7 January 2025.
The owner was called towards the end of the hearing and explained that they had extended the tenancy, at the tenant’s request, from the expiry date of 8 September 2024. They moved back to the property after the tenancy ended on 15 December 2024. They had arranged for their furniture and enrolled their daughter in daycare in advance and were committed to the move. Their employment opportunities then changed, and they had to relocate to Queenstown. They did not consider it was possible to commute daily between Wanaka and Queenstown.
There is some evidence on the file supporting the owners’ evidence (which I accept) that they had intended to move back to Wanaka permanently, for example, a document relating to childcare. From the tenant’s perspective this may have looked as though the landlords had terminated the tenancy so that they could re-let the premises. However, I am satisfied, on the available evidence, that the landlord had grounds to terminate the tenancy and exercised that right for genuine reasons. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
As to cleaning, the tenants had permission for a dog. The landlord’s inspection photographs taken on 16 December 2024 show dog hair at the join between the carpet and the skirting boards and in the hot water cupboard. The owner said there was visible hair where the carpet met the wall and a dog odour on hot days. They arranged for further carpet cleaning to be performed, and this removed the pet hair from the carpet and improved the odour.
I recognise that the tenant performed cleaning, including carpet cleaning, before vacating. The tenant provided written statements from family members and friends confirming that extensive cleaning was performed and stating their opinion that the property was left in a reasonably clean condition.
In my view the photographs show a property that was in most respects reasonably clean. Some surfaces probably needed a further wipe down, such as the stove top, a bathroom vanity, and possibly the toilet. My general impression, however, is that the difference between the cleaning performed by the tenant and the cleaning paid for by the landlord mostly reflects the difference between a reasonable standard of cleanliness and a professional standard. For example, if the tenant failed to dust some skirting boards, the top of a power socket or some window ledges, it does not necessarily mean the required standard was not met overall.
The landlord noted that the living room and kitchen floors were sticky and dirty, as noted on the cleaning invoice. The photographs do not really support this. It may be that some of the cleaning performed by the tenant caused the stickiness or that some of the cleaning needed a further touch up, for example the “streaky” shower glass and mirror. The photographs provided seem not to show other areas identified in the invoice, for example, dusty shelves in the living room and grease on the kitchen backsplash (which is not to say the cleaning was unnecessary).
The landlord’s photographs do show that there was an issue with pet hair in the carpet and in the hot water cupboard, and in these respects (plus the areas identified above) I consider the premises were not reasonably clean. Having been allowed a pet, the tenants could reasonably be expected to ensure the carpets and floors were free of hair and odour.
I award the carpet cleaning costs of $250.00 and award $50.00 towards the cleaning cost of $200.00, reflecting 1 hour of cleaning. The bond is apportioned and refunded accordingly. Other issues
In the application form the tenant alleged that the landlord had spoken ill of them to potential new landlords. This was denied. There is no cogent evidence to support this part of the claim, assuming it is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Filing fee and suppression
The tenants’ application has been partly successful. They had to come to the Tribunal to recover the bond. I award the filing fee.
I grant name suppression as requested by the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138669 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138669 — Cleanliness

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