What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293099 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 5293099?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $634.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293099?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293099?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12574742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293099 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 5293099?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $634.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293099?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293099?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12574742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293099 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293099 — net $1,421.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet assessment and lino cleanig	$280.00	Carpet assessment and lino cleanig
Replace furnishings: carpet	$634.92	Replace furnishings: carpet
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,421.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,421.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Marien Amanda Grueso must pay [The landlord/s] $1,787.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord was represented by a property manager.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 6 March 2023 and ended on 30 March 2025. Cleaning and grounds
The landlord seeks $560 for their time cleaning up the property at the end of the tenancy. That is based on 16 hours at $35 an hour.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a 360 o view of the premises as well as some photos. In the 360 o the premises appear reasonably clean and tidy, but in the still photos it is evident that further cleaning was required as well as weeding outside. Parts of the garden were overgrown, there was a small amount of litter and a small pile of green waste.
The tenant was adamant that she had cleaned the property and her family had cleaned up the grounds. She believed that the photographs must have been taken some time later.
Although the tenant may have done some cleaning, some of the drawers, cupboards and cupboard doors were grubby. A bag of rubbish was left on top of a cupboard, soap was left in the shower, and some surfaces had not been wiped. The tenant is not required to leave the premises in immaculate condition, and a landlord should expect that there may be some extra cleaning required, but I accept that in the present instance some cleaning was required to bring them to a level that could be described as “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The grounds had not been well-maintained. I accept that the images were taken the day after the tenancy was vacated. They are date stamped and there is no reason to believe that the landlord waited to take photographs.
I find that 16 hours is reasonable to clean and tidy up the premises.
Where the landlord has undertaken the work themselves, they are entitled to a modest hourly rate, which is usually no more than $30 an hour for general cleaning and gardening. Therefore I order $420.
The photos also show a lot of marks on the carpet and some obvious damage in one room.
The property manager said that she arranged for Carpet Recovery Limited to assess and/or clean the carpet and clean the lino which she said was so sticky that her shoes stuck to it.
The assessor said: “Vinyl upon entry was very sticky shoes were literally sticking to the floor when walk upon”.
The landlord sought reimbursement of $230 as set out in the invoice.
It was reasonable to ask an expert to decide whether professional cleaning would restore the carpet.
Although the tenant denied any knowledge of stickiness on the linoleum, I find it unlikely that the property manager would have arranged for professional cleaning had it not been sticky, and this was confirmed in the invoice from Carpet Recovery Ltd. The tenant is ordered to pay $230 for the cleaning and assessment.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks the following amounts for replacement carpet: a. Lounge: insurance excess $750. b. Master bedroom: insurance excess $750. c. Bedroom 2: $493.00.
The tenant accepted that she had caused stains and damage in the lounge and Bedroom 2, but did not agree that she had caused any stains in the master bedroom. She agreed that the photographs showed marks, but said they must have happened after she moved out.
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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The photographs show a number of large stains in the lounge. The tenant said that she had hired a machine to clean the carpet, but it had not removed the stains. The carpet assessor noted, “The carpet is heavily stained and attempts to clean has worsened by scrubbing and bleaching. Any attempt to try and remedy would be futile”.
It was reasonable that the landlord replaced the carpet. The replacement cost was $2,181.77. The landlord seeks $750, being the excess payable to the insurance company.
In fact, the tenancy agreement says that the excess was $550 at the start of the tenancy. The property manager confirmed that the tenant had not been advised of any increase.
However, it may not be reasonable that the tenant pay the excess once depreciation has been considered.
The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy which lasted 2 years. The property manager did not know how old the carpet was at the start of the tenancy but said that it still had a lot of life in it.
The photographs show that it was in good, but not excellent condition.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Even if the carpet had been brand new at the start of the tenancy and was worth $2,181.77, applying the IRD depreciation rates, at the end of the tenancy, it would have been worth between $1,227 1 and $1,418. 2
At the end of five years, a carpet valued at $2,181.77 would have decreased to between $272.72 3 and $517.74. 4 I have therefore decided that the tenant should contribute the average of those two amounts. That comes to $395.23. This calculation recognises that the carpet was not new, but that it should not have needed replacement at the end of the tenancy.
The damage in Bedroom 2 is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepts responsibility for this.
The replacement cost of the carpet for this room is $493. Applying the same formula as above, at the end of 5 years, the carpet would be worth between $61.72 and $116.99. An average of those two amounts is $89.35.
The tenant was not aware of the stains in the master bedroom. She did not believe it looked like that when she left. In the absence of any photographs from the tenant, I am satisfied that the stains were there. They were not visible at the start of the tenancy, but there is some shading/wear and tear. 1 Applying the diminishing value rate of 25% 2 Applying the straight line value rate of 17.5% 3 Applying the straight line value rate of 17.5% 4 Applying the diminishing value rate of 25%
Applying the same formula as above, at the end of 5 years, the carpet would be worth between $196.93 and $103.74, anaverage of which is $150.34.
That makes a total of $634.92 for the replacement carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The amount ordered is payable immediately, meaning that the landlord may take action to enforce it, but the tenant is encouraged to contact the landlord to make arrangements to pay it off. If the parties reach agreement on a payment plan, that will avoid any further court proceedings.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293099 — net $1,421.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet assessment and lino cleanig	$280.00	Carpet assessment and lino cleanig
Replace furnishings: carpet	$634.92	Replace furnishings: carpet
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,421.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,421.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Marien Amanda Grueso must pay [The landlord/s] $1,787.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord was represented by a property manager.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 6 March 2023 and ended on 30 March 2025. Cleaning and grounds
The landlord seeks $560 for their time cleaning up the property at the end of the tenancy. That is based on 16 hours at $35 an hour.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a 360 o view of the premises as well as some photos. In the 360 o the premises appear reasonably clean and tidy, but in the still photos it is evident that further cleaning was required as well as weeding outside. Parts of the garden were overgrown, there was a small amount of litter and a small pile of green waste.
The tenant was adamant that she had cleaned the property and her family had cleaned up the grounds. She believed that the photographs must have been taken some time later.
Although the tenant may have done some cleaning, some of the drawers, cupboards and cupboard doors were grubby. A bag of rubbish was left on top of a cupboard, soap was left in the shower, and some surfaces had not been wiped. The tenant is not required to leave the premises in immaculate condition, and a landlord should expect that there may be some extra cleaning required, but I accept that in the present instance some cleaning was required to bring them to a level that could be described as “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The grounds had not been well-maintained. I accept that the images were taken the day after the tenancy was vacated. They are date stamped and there is no reason to believe that the landlord waited to take photographs.
I find that 16 hours is reasonable to clean and tidy up the premises.
Where the landlord has undertaken the work themselves, they are entitled to a modest hourly rate, which is usually no more than $30 an hour for general cleaning and gardening. Therefore I order $420.
The photos also show a lot of marks on the carpet and some obvious damage in one room.
The property manager said that she arranged for Carpet Recovery Limited to assess and/or clean the carpet and clean the lino which she said was so sticky that her shoes stuck to it.
The assessor said: “Vinyl upon entry was very sticky shoes were literally sticking to the floor when walk upon”.
The landlord sought reimbursement of $230 as set out in the invoice.
It was reasonable to ask an expert to decide whether professional cleaning would restore the carpet.
Although the tenant denied any knowledge of stickiness on the linoleum, I find it unlikely that the property manager would have arranged for professional cleaning had it not been sticky, and this was confirmed in the invoice from Carpet Recovery Ltd. The tenant is ordered to pay $230 for the cleaning and assessment.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks the following amounts for replacement carpet: a. Lounge: insurance excess $750. b. Master bedroom: insurance excess $750. c. Bedroom 2: $493.00.
The tenant accepted that she had caused stains and damage in the lounge and Bedroom 2, but did not agree that she had caused any stains in the master bedroom. She agreed that the photographs showed marks, but said they must have happened after she moved out.
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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The photographs show a number of large stains in the lounge. The tenant said that she had hired a machine to clean the carpet, but it had not removed the stains. The carpet assessor noted, “The carpet is heavily stained and attempts to clean has worsened by scrubbing and bleaching. Any attempt to try and remedy would be futile”.
It was reasonable that the landlord replaced the carpet. The replacement cost was $2,181.77. The landlord seeks $750, being the excess payable to the insurance company.
In fact, the tenancy agreement says that the excess was $550 at the start of the tenancy. The property manager confirmed that the tenant had not been advised of any increase.
However, it may not be reasonable that the tenant pay the excess once depreciation has been considered.
The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy which lasted 2 years. The property manager did not know how old the carpet was at the start of the tenancy but said that it still had a lot of life in it.
The photographs show that it was in good, but not excellent condition.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Even if the carpet had been brand new at the start of the tenancy and was worth $2,181.77, applying the IRD depreciation rates, at the end of the tenancy, it would have been worth between $1,227 1 and $1,418. 2
At the end of five years, a carpet valued at $2,181.77 would have decreased to between $272.72 3 and $517.74. 4 I have therefore decided that the tenant should contribute the average of those two amounts. That comes to $395.23. This calculation recognises that the carpet was not new, but that it should not have needed replacement at the end of the tenancy.
The damage in Bedroom 2 is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepts responsibility for this.
The replacement cost of the carpet for this room is $493. Applying the same formula as above, at the end of 5 years, the carpet would be worth between $61.72 and $116.99. An average of those two amounts is $89.35.
The tenant was not aware of the stains in the master bedroom. She did not believe it looked like that when she left. In the absence of any photographs from the tenant, I am satisfied that the stains were there. They were not visible at the start of the tenancy, but there is some shading/wear and tear. 1 Applying the diminishing value rate of 25% 2 Applying the straight line value rate of 17.5% 3 Applying the straight line value rate of 17.5% 4 Applying the diminishing value rate of 25%
Applying the same formula as above, at the end of 5 years, the carpet would be worth between $196.93 and $103.74, anaverage of which is $150.34.
That makes a total of $634.92 for the replacement carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The amount ordered is payable immediately, meaning that the landlord may take action to enforce it, but the tenant is encouraged to contact the landlord to make arrangements to pay it off. If the parties reach agreement on a payment plan, that will avoid any further court proceedings.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293099 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293099 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions