What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148693 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 5148693?

Cleaning: $219.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148693?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11659422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148693 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 5148693?

Cleaning: $219.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148693?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11659422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Walpole Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148693 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148693 — net $219.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$219.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$219.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$219.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood $219.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood - $219.00; b. [The tenant/s] - $1,481.00.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Holdem, the property manager, Mr Wood, the owner, both representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], representing both tenants, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. It is noted that, whilst the landlord originally claimed for outgoings, they meant to claim compensation, so this claim was amended as such. The tenant said she also understood the landlord’s claim was for compensation not outgoings, based on the evidence provided by the landlord.
The tenant cross-applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Do the tenants owe the landlord rent? If so, how much?
The tenancy ended on 10 December 2024. The landlord claimed $1,118.57 in rent arrears, which they said covered the period from 24 November 2024 to 10 December 2024, essentially the last 2-week period or so of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 3 October 2015. The tenant said that they had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance, along with the bond, letting fee and a rent adjustment allowing them to move in on a Saturday when their rent payments were not to start until the following Wednesday. The tenant said she understood the 2 weeks’ rent they paid in advance was to apply to the last 2 weeks of the tenancy. The landlord said they understood that the 2 weeks’ rent in advance was applied at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord was not able to provide any rent records from the start of the tenancy on 3 October 2015 until 2017, for the first 2 years of the tenancy. The property management firm currently managing the tenancy had apparently merged with the former property management firm, but the rent records of the former property management firm were not apparently available to start until 2017. The landlord provided some ledgers from 2017, which were not entirely clear, but the formal rent summary provided by the landlord did not start until 4 April 2020.
As the landlord has not provided any rent records from the start of the tenancy in October 2015, they cannot prove their claim that the 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance by the tenants was applied at the start of the tenancy, thereby rendering the tenants liable for the last 2 weeks’ rent in the tenancy, as they have claimed. Given this insufficient evidence, I must dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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.
The landlord said the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not leave the carpets in reasonable condition. The landlord provided some photographs of three carpet stains, two of which were very faint in my view, and said there was a strong smell of dogs when they entered the property after the tenants left. There was no formal Outgoing Inspection Report noting this, only a handful of photographs. Neither did the landlord provide any Ingoing Inspection Report. However, the landlord said they had put in new carpet throughout the property around 2020, which was in the middle of the tenancy, which was not disputed by the tenant, so I can assume that the carpet was in good condition when installed as new in 2020 during the tenancy.
The tenant said she was fastidious about her pets and vacuumed daily and that her pets did not leave a smell in the carpet. The tenant confirmed they paid around $1,200.00 approximately to professional gardeners, window cleaners and to a cleaner who also steam cleaned the carpets. The tenant said that the carpet steam cleaning was done on 9 December 2024, the day before the tenancy ended. She said she had returned to the property after the professional cleaners and gardeners had finished and was happy with how the property was left. However, she admitted that the carpet had been wet when she returned to the property so acknowledged she would not have seen any stains. Further, the tenant confirmed there was a strong smell left from the carpet cleaning, but she disputed this was a dog smell. She indicated she asked the carpet cleaner about the smell, and he told her it was the chemical used in the steam cleaning.
The owner said he went into the property only a day or two after the tenants left and there was a strong smell in the carpets. He thought it was potentially a dog smell. He felt the carpets needed to be steam cleaned and deodorised and so engaged a service to do this, to get rid of the strong smell and the stains left in the carpet.
From the photographs of the carpet provided by the landlord, I think it is somewhat borderline about whether the stains in the carpet depicted fair wear and tear on the carpet, as the tenant indicated, given they had lived with that carpet for 4 years with their family. However, some of the carpet marks were still visible in the photographs and all parties agreed there had been a strong smell left in the carpet after the tenant’s carpet cleaner had finished at the property. Given this, I find it likely that there was a strong smell left in the carpet, which needed to be deodorised, which I see as the main issue with the carpets at the end of the tenancy. I find it reasonable that the tenants pay for the carpet to be deodorised, and for any visible marks left in the carpet after the tenants’ carpet cleaner had finished, to be removed. The property manager confirmed the smell in the carpet was neutralised and the stains remaining were removed by their carpet cleaner. I find the cost claimed by the landlord of $219.00 for deodorising and cleaning the carpet to be reasonable. As such, I award the landlord $219.00 to deodorise and re-clean the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. Given I have awarded the landlord $219.00 to clean the carpets, I find it reasonable that the tenants pay the landlord $219.00 from the bond for this.
Therefore, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood - $219.00; b. [The tenant/s] - $1,481.00. Filing fee
As both parties have had partial success with their respective claims, I do not order the reimbursement of the filing fee to either party. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression. The landlord did not request name suppression. As the tenant has been partly successful with their claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148693 — net $219.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$219.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$219.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$219.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood $219.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood - $219.00; b. [The tenant/s] - $1,481.00.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Holdem, the property manager, Mr Wood, the owner, both representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], representing both tenants, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. It is noted that, whilst the landlord originally claimed for outgoings, they meant to claim compensation, so this claim was amended as such. The tenant said she also understood the landlord’s claim was for compensation not outgoings, based on the evidence provided by the landlord.
The tenant cross-applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Do the tenants owe the landlord rent? If so, how much?
The tenancy ended on 10 December 2024. The landlord claimed $1,118.57 in rent arrears, which they said covered the period from 24 November 2024 to 10 December 2024, essentially the last 2-week period or so of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 3 October 2015. The tenant said that they had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance, along with the bond, letting fee and a rent adjustment allowing them to move in on a Saturday when their rent payments were not to start until the following Wednesday. The tenant said she understood the 2 weeks’ rent they paid in advance was to apply to the last 2 weeks of the tenancy. The landlord said they understood that the 2 weeks’ rent in advance was applied at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord was not able to provide any rent records from the start of the tenancy on 3 October 2015 until 2017, for the first 2 years of the tenancy. The property management firm currently managing the tenancy had apparently merged with the former property management firm, but the rent records of the former property management firm were not apparently available to start until 2017. The landlord provided some ledgers from 2017, which were not entirely clear, but the formal rent summary provided by the landlord did not start until 4 April 2020.
As the landlord has not provided any rent records from the start of the tenancy in October 2015, they cannot prove their claim that the 2 weeks’ rent paid in advance by the tenants was applied at the start of the tenancy, thereby rendering the tenants liable for the last 2 weeks’ rent in the tenancy, as they have claimed. Given this insufficient evidence, I must dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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.
The landlord said the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not leave the carpets in reasonable condition. The landlord provided some photographs of three carpet stains, two of which were very faint in my view, and said there was a strong smell of dogs when they entered the property after the tenants left. There was no formal Outgoing Inspection Report noting this, only a handful of photographs. Neither did the landlord provide any Ingoing Inspection Report. However, the landlord said they had put in new carpet throughout the property around 2020, which was in the middle of the tenancy, which was not disputed by the tenant, so I can assume that the carpet was in good condition when installed as new in 2020 during the tenancy.
The tenant said she was fastidious about her pets and vacuumed daily and that her pets did not leave a smell in the carpet. The tenant confirmed they paid around $1,200.00 approximately to professional gardeners, window cleaners and to a cleaner who also steam cleaned the carpets. The tenant said that the carpet steam cleaning was done on 9 December 2024, the day before the tenancy ended. She said she had returned to the property after the professional cleaners and gardeners had finished and was happy with how the property was left. However, she admitted that the carpet had been wet when she returned to the property so acknowledged she would not have seen any stains. Further, the tenant confirmed there was a strong smell left from the carpet cleaning, but she disputed this was a dog smell. She indicated she asked the carpet cleaner about the smell, and he told her it was the chemical used in the steam cleaning.
The owner said he went into the property only a day or two after the tenants left and there was a strong smell in the carpets. He thought it was potentially a dog smell. He felt the carpets needed to be steam cleaned and deodorised and so engaged a service to do this, to get rid of the strong smell and the stains left in the carpet.
From the photographs of the carpet provided by the landlord, I think it is somewhat borderline about whether the stains in the carpet depicted fair wear and tear on the carpet, as the tenant indicated, given they had lived with that carpet for 4 years with their family. However, some of the carpet marks were still visible in the photographs and all parties agreed there had been a strong smell left in the carpet after the tenant’s carpet cleaner had finished at the property. Given this, I find it likely that there was a strong smell left in the carpet, which needed to be deodorised, which I see as the main issue with the carpets at the end of the tenancy. I find it reasonable that the tenants pay for the carpet to be deodorised, and for any visible marks left in the carpet after the tenants’ carpet cleaner had finished, to be removed. The property manager confirmed the smell in the carpet was neutralised and the stains remaining were removed by their carpet cleaner. I find the cost claimed by the landlord of $219.00 for deodorising and cleaning the carpet to be reasonable. As such, I award the landlord $219.00 to deodorise and re-clean the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. Given I have awarded the landlord $219.00 to clean the carpets, I find it reasonable that the tenants pay the landlord $219.00 from the bond for this.
Therefore, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. Braziers Limited As Agent For Craig Wood - $219.00; b. [The tenant/s] - $1,481.00. Filing fee
As both parties have had partial success with their respective claims, I do not order the reimbursement of the filing fee to either party. Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression. The landlord did not request name suppression. As the tenant has been partly successful with their claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148693 — Cleanliness at 29 Walpole Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148693 — Cleanliness at 29 Walpole Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions