How much money was awarded in case 5188435?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188435?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11934253-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5188435?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188435?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11934253-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Ellerslie Avenue, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5188435 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5188435?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188435 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 25 June 2025: a. To professionally clean the carpets throughout the house using a specialised enzyme-based cleaner designed to break down uric acid crystals and organic residues from pet urine and odours.

As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the landlord must pay the tenant $850 immediately.

If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $850. These costs may be set off against rent payable. DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $27.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $27.00

Reasons

Two of the tenants attended the hearing. Ms. Divakalala participated via video, and Ms. Marks joined via teleconference. Mr. Elam was unable to attend due to work commitments.

Ms. Chen and Ms. Wilder on behalf of the landlord attended the hearing via teleconference. Ms. Chen is the current property manager, while Ms. Wilder previously held the role before Ms. Chen took over management responsibilities. Introduction

The issues initially brought before the Tribunal included bathroom ventilation, mould-affected curtains, and the commercial cleaning of carpets. I note that the ventilation and curtain matters have since been resolved between the parties.

The sole remaining issue for adjudication today is the tenants' request for professional carpet cleaning, which the landlord has declined to undertake.

The tenants state that the carpets emit strong odours, particularly of pet urine, which they attribute to previous tenants' pets. They argue that this affects their health and living conditions, despite the landlord's position that the carpets were professionally cleaned in December 2023 and deemed reasonably clean. Supporting statements from visitors corroborate the tenants' claims about the pervasive smell. The tenants’ case

The tenants, Ms. Divakalala and Ms. Marks, submit that the property's carpets retain persistent odours from previous tenants' pets, creating unhealthy living conditions. They argue the hot water extraction cleaning performed in December 2023 was inadequate for removing deeply embedded pet urine smells, requiring specialised enzymatic treatment instead. The odours become particularly strong during humid weather, affecting their health and comfort, with visible stains and pet hair still present in certain areas. They maintain that the landlord's refusal to properly address this issue is contrary to their responsibilities under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenants submitted two supporting witnesses who corroborate their claims. Ms Chelsea Blackstock describes the carpets emitting an "inescapable" animal waste odour that permeates the house. Cami Carty-Melis confirms noticing persistent urine smells in upstairs carpeted areas despite the tenants' cleaning efforts. Both witnesses say these conditions fall below reasonable living standards, supporting the tenants' request for professional remediation.

The tenants emphasise that the landlord previously acknowledged pet damage during a property visit, contradicting claims that no significant pet-related issues exist. They note Ms Wilder confirmed the presence of a medium-sized dog during an earlier tenancy. While the current property manager, Ms Chen, argues the carpets were "reasonably clean" when the tenancy began, the tenants counter that "reasonable" cleanliness must account for health impacts and persistent odours that ordinary cleaning cannot resolve.

In conclusion, the tenants seek an order requiring the landlord to professionally clean the carpets using methods suitable for pet odour removal. They argue this is necessary to restore the property to a habitable condition and prevent ongoing health impacts, particularly given their allergies and the independent witness observations of unacceptable odour levels persisting in the home. The landlord’s response

Ms. Chen and Ms. Wilder, oppose the tenants' request for professional carpet cleaning on three grounds. a. First, they contend the carpets were professionally cleaned via hot water extraction in December 2023 at a cost of $500, immediately before the current tenancy, rendering further cleaning unnecessary. They emphasise that the previous tenant (who occupied the property for 12 months post- cleaning) never reported odour issues, suggesting the current complaints stem from the tenants' heightened sensitivity due to allergies rather than objective uncleanliness. b. Second, the landlord disputes the severity of the alleged odours, noting that the owner did not detect noticeable smells during her February 2025 inspection. While acknowledging a prior tenant had one medium-sized dog, they argue the 2023 cleaning adequately addressed any residual pet odours. They characterise the tenants' demand for enzymatic cleaning as unreasonable given the age and general condition of the carpets, which they describe as “original” and "well-maintained for their years." c. Finally, the landlord asserts there is no contractual or legal obligation to repeatedly clean carpets between tenancies, provided the property meets the "reasonably clean" standard at tenancy commencement. They argue the tenants' allergies constitute a personal circumstance beyond the landlord's responsibility to remediate. Ms. Wilder specifically notes that the $500 cleaning expense just 18 months prior would make another cleaning economically burdensome without clear evidence of smell.

Ms Chen and Ms Wilder did not appear to suggest the presence of any odour. Instead, they attribute complaints to subjective perceptions rather than verifiable breaches of habitability standards. They highlight the absence of professional inspections or photographic evidence proving that the carpets fail to meet healthy homes requirements. The law

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Analysis

I find the landlord has failed to meet her obligation under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness condition. While the carpets were professionally cleaned in December 2023, the evidence, on balance of probabilities, suggests that this was insufficient to address the deeply embedded pet odours—a fact corroborated by both the tenants’ persistent complaints and independent witness observations. The tenants, who occupy the property daily, are best positioned to assess ongoing habitability issues, and their consistent reports of strong odours carry significant weight.

I prefer the tenants’ evidence for three reasons. a. First, their accounts are detailed and specific, identifying particular areas where odours and stains persist. b. Second, their claims are objectively supported by two disinterested witnesses (Chelsea Blackstock and Cami Carty-Melis), who confirmed the pervasive smell of animal waste during visits. c. Third, the landlord’s own admission that a prior tenant kept a medium-sized dog establishes a plausible source for the odours that hot water extraction alone could not fully remediate.

In my view, the landlord’s reliance on the December 2023 cleaning is unpersuasive. I accept Ms Divakalala’s submissions that the method used (hot water extraction) is not designed to eliminate enzymatic odours from pet urine. While the landlord argues the odours are subjective, the unanimous testimony from occupants and visitors, coupled with the lack of contradictory evidence from the landlord and consistent evidence that the carpets were original, supports a finding on balance of probabilities that the smells are both noticeable and unreasonable.

Accordingly, I find the carpets’ condition breaches section 45(1)(a) of the RTA standard of reasonable cleanliness. The tenants are entitled to an order for professional enzymatic cleaning to restore the carpet to a reasonable state of cleanliness. The landlord’s claim that the carpet was professionally cleaned in December 2023 is outweighed by their statutory duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Filing fee

Because James Elam, Cayathri Divakalala, Johanna Marks have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188435 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the landlord must pay the tenant $850 immediately.

Reasons

Two of the tenants attended the hearing. Ms. Divakalala participated via video, and Ms. Marks joined via teleconference. Mr. Elam was unable to attend due to work commitments.

The sole remaining issue for adjudication today is the tenants' request for professional carpet cleaning, which the landlord has declined to undertake.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Analysis

Because James Elam, Cayathri Divakalala, Johanna Marks have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188435 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Ellerslie Avenue, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5188435 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Ellerslie Avenue, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions