What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166581 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5166581?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kickboard: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mattress: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11731805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166581 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5166581?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kickboard: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mattress: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11731805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166581 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166581. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$425.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace mattress	$500.00	Replace mattress
Replace Curtains	$65.00	Replace Curtains
Clean covers	$100.00	Clean covers
Replace chattels	$350.00	Replace chattels
Replace kickboard	$100.00	Replace kickboard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: - $1,567.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [The tenant/s] who appeared by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for a term from 16 September 2023 to 15 September 2024. The tenancy was managed by [The landlord’s agent] as the landlord’s agent.
The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024 so the landlord could move back into the property.
The property manager conducted an inspection on 1 December 2024. The inspection report notes “The property has been vacated in a reasonable clean and tidy condition.”
The landlord has chosen not to call evidence from the property manager who conducted that inspection and other regular inspections during the tenancy. The tenant says at each of those inspections too, the premises was found to be in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord has not provided copies of those earlier inspection reports.
At the end of the tenancy a 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 says that when she moved back in she discovered that the premises smelled from dogs that the tenants had at the premises. She says there were large quantities of dog hair that an initial professional carpet clean did not remove. She says that her reaction to the dog hair was so severe she thought she was going to die.
The landlord claims that the contamination of the carpets, her mattress, curtains and chair covers is so extreme that they will need to be replaced.
The tenancy agreement provides that no pets are allowed.
Much of the dispute between the parties has focussed on whether or not the tenant breached the no pets provision in the agreement. The tenant acknowledges that one Husky dog and one Staffordshire terrier type dog visited regularly, perhaps once a week, but says that did not breach the agreement. The landlord insists that the dogs were living there and has provided a note from a neighbour saying, “I am the neighbour of [Tenancy address suppressed]. I can confirm that [The tenant/s], who were tenant during 2024, had 2 dogs at the property during their tenancy.”
With respect to the parties, that dispute is somewhat irrelevant. The question for the Tribunal to decide is whether the tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was met and whether damage was caused. If those obligations were breached, through dogs being at the premises with the tenants’ consent, the tenants are responsible, whether the dogs were living there or just visiting.
The tenant agrees to pay for the carpet cleaning costs as proved by the invoice provided by the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 or animals at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The evidence provided satisfies me that there was dog hair through the premises when the tenants vacated. That is shown from the photographs provided by the landlord. The landlord also brought to the hearing examples of the vacuum cleaner discharge showing what appears to be a significant amount of dog hair collected. The landlord also brought in the curtains and chair covers.
The question is whether the presence of that dog hair was such as to require replacement of all the property the landlord claims.
The carpet has had two professional cleaning treatments. The landlord says there is an unacceptable remaining smell and hair. The tenants dispute that. The claim of unacceptable odour in the carpet is not supported by the property manager’s final inspection report or inspections done during the tenancy. I do not find it proved that the carpet requires replacement because of the tenants’ breach and that claim is declined.
The tenant agrees to pay for replacement of the curtains as they are also stained. Replacement cost is $99.99. The compensation awarded allows for their depreciated value.
I find it proved that the chair covers were not left in acceptable condition but do not find it proved that they need to be replaced with new ones, I award a sum to allow for cleaning costs.
The landlord’s evidence is that she has already disposed of her mattress because it was not possible for her to sleep on it without reacting to the dog hairs. The photographs provided do show a large amount of dog hair on the underside of the mattress. On balance, I find it proved that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the mattress, as a consequence of the tenants’ breach. She should be compensated for that loss. The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The compensation amount awarded takes into account replacement cost and depreciation.
A kickboard in the kitchen is water damages and the landlord is entitled to have it replaced. The landlord has provided no evidence of the cost. $100.00 is allowed.
Especially having regard to the end of tenancy inspection report, I do not find any other damage proved beyond normal wear and tear. Missing chattels
The landlord claims that several chattels that were at the property when the tenancy began, were not there when the tenancy ended.
There is no chattels list attached to the agreement but photographs provided do show some of them.
The tenant says that he has no recollection of using or losing the items the landlord claims to be missing but does not object to compensating the landlord for items that have gone astray.
The evidence satisfies me on balance that the following items belonging to the landlord needed to be replaced by her: garden rake, garden hose, 3 x floor mats. Allowing for the depreciated value of those items, compensation of $150.00 is awarded.
The head to the landlord’s vacuum cleaner was missing. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that she has been unable to get a replacement head so will need to buy another vacuum cleaner. Equivalent replacement cost is $299.00. Allowing for the depreciated value of the existing vacuum cleaner, $200.00 is awarded.
Because [The landlord/s] has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166581. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$425.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace mattress	$500.00	Replace mattress
Replace Curtains	$65.00	Replace Curtains
Clean covers	$100.00	Clean covers
Replace chattels	$350.00	Replace chattels
Replace kickboard	$100.00	Replace kickboard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: - $1,567.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [The tenant/s] who appeared by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for a term from 16 September 2023 to 15 September 2024. The tenancy was managed by [The landlord’s agent] as the landlord’s agent.
The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024 so the landlord could move back into the property.
The property manager conducted an inspection on 1 December 2024. The inspection report notes “The property has been vacated in a reasonable clean and tidy condition.”
The landlord has chosen not to call evidence from the property manager who conducted that inspection and other regular inspections during the tenancy. The tenant says at each of those inspections too, the premises was found to be in reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord has not provided copies of those earlier inspection reports.
At the end of the tenancy a 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 says that when she moved back in she discovered that the premises smelled from dogs that the tenants had at the premises. She says there were large quantities of dog hair that an initial professional carpet clean did not remove. She says that her reaction to the dog hair was so severe she thought she was going to die.
The landlord claims that the contamination of the carpets, her mattress, curtains and chair covers is so extreme that they will need to be replaced.
The tenancy agreement provides that no pets are allowed.
Much of the dispute between the parties has focussed on whether or not the tenant breached the no pets provision in the agreement. The tenant acknowledges that one Husky dog and one Staffordshire terrier type dog visited regularly, perhaps once a week, but says that did not breach the agreement. The landlord insists that the dogs were living there and has provided a note from a neighbour saying, “I am the neighbour of [Tenancy address suppressed]. I can confirm that [The tenant/s], who were tenant during 2024, had 2 dogs at the property during their tenancy.”
With respect to the parties, that dispute is somewhat irrelevant. The question for the Tribunal to decide is whether the tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was met and whether damage was caused. If those obligations were breached, through dogs being at the premises with the tenants’ consent, the tenants are responsible, whether the dogs were living there or just visiting.
The tenant agrees to pay for the carpet cleaning costs as proved by the invoice provided by the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 or animals at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The evidence provided satisfies me that there was dog hair through the premises when the tenants vacated. That is shown from the photographs provided by the landlord. The landlord also brought to the hearing examples of the vacuum cleaner discharge showing what appears to be a significant amount of dog hair collected. The landlord also brought in the curtains and chair covers.
The question is whether the presence of that dog hair was such as to require replacement of all the property the landlord claims.
The carpet has had two professional cleaning treatments. The landlord says there is an unacceptable remaining smell and hair. The tenants dispute that. The claim of unacceptable odour in the carpet is not supported by the property manager’s final inspection report or inspections done during the tenancy. I do not find it proved that the carpet requires replacement because of the tenants’ breach and that claim is declined.
The tenant agrees to pay for replacement of the curtains as they are also stained. Replacement cost is $99.99. The compensation awarded allows for their depreciated value.
I find it proved that the chair covers were not left in acceptable condition but do not find it proved that they need to be replaced with new ones, I award a sum to allow for cleaning costs.
The landlord’s evidence is that she has already disposed of her mattress because it was not possible for her to sleep on it without reacting to the dog hairs. The photographs provided do show a large amount of dog hair on the underside of the mattress. On balance, I find it proved that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the mattress, as a consequence of the tenants’ breach. She should be compensated for that loss. The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The compensation amount awarded takes into account replacement cost and depreciation.
A kickboard in the kitchen is water damages and the landlord is entitled to have it replaced. The landlord has provided no evidence of the cost. $100.00 is allowed.
Especially having regard to the end of tenancy inspection report, I do not find any other damage proved beyond normal wear and tear. Missing chattels
The landlord claims that several chattels that were at the property when the tenancy began, were not there when the tenancy ended.
There is no chattels list attached to the agreement but photographs provided do show some of them.
The tenant says that he has no recollection of using or losing the items the landlord claims to be missing but does not object to compensating the landlord for items that have gone astray.
The evidence satisfies me on balance that the following items belonging to the landlord needed to be replaced by her: garden rake, garden hose, 3 x floor mats. Allowing for the depreciated value of those items, compensation of $150.00 is awarded.
The head to the landlord’s vacuum cleaner was missing. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that she has been unable to get a replacement head so will need to buy another vacuum cleaner. Equivalent replacement cost is $299.00. Allowing for the depreciated value of the existing vacuum cleaner, $200.00 is awarded.
Because [The landlord/s] has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166581 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166581 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions