What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317698 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5317698?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $178.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317698?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317698?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317698 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5317698?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $178.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317698?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317698?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Somerville Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317698 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317698 — net $538.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning as agreed at mediation	$178.25	Cleaning as agreed at mediation
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$538.25
Bond	$2,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$538.25

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $538.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 (3407842-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited: $538.25 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,521.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought a refund of their bond of $2,060.00.
In response, the landlord applied for rent compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 27/6/2024 at $515.00 rent per week.
Following the roll over to a periodic tenancy the tenants gave notice and vacated the premises on 27/7/2025.

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $178.25 for cleaning.
At mediation on 18/8/2025 the parties agreed that $178.25 could be deducted from the bond for the cleaning.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation of $780.00 for carpet cleaning or alternatively $750.00 being the insurance excess if the landlord decided to replace the carpet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit property inspection reports with photographs, dated 26/6/2024 and 28/7/2025 respectively and an invoice from the carpet cleaner.
Further the property manager who did the exit report gave evidence and the carpet cleaner was contacted by telephone and also gave evidence.
The landlord relied on special clause 37 in the tenancy agreement which provided in the special circumstances of the tenants being allowed a pet for them to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
While agreeing that they had an “inside” cat the tenants disputed that there was any odour emanating from the carpets while they lived in the premises and that the property manager had not brought any carpet issues to their attention during the regular three monthly inspections.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There was no suggestion from the landlord that the damage was anything other than careless.
I am persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord, in particular that of the carpet cleaner, that damage was caused during the tenancy to the carpets due to pet urine.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
For the avoidance of doubt the pet clause by itself would not have been sufficient to make the tenants liable for carpet cleaning, without the evidence of the carpet cleaner.
The reason for this is that the clause is inconsistent with the obligations of the tenants under section 40(1)&(2) and therefore not enforceable against them without substantive evidence to prove the carpets actually needed to be professionally cleaned.
I have declined to award the $420.00 included in the carpet cleaning invoice for “Save your carpet guarantee”.
The reason for this is the explanation by the carpet cleaner that this was for replacement of the carpet if the landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning within 28 days.
As the 28 days ended on 28/8/2025 and the landlord had not made a claim against his insurance I consider this a business cost associated with renting premises which the landlord decided to incur and which the tenants are not responsible for.
An award has been made for the balance of the carpet cleaning invoice amounting to $360.00.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is not available to the tenants because they were only partly successful with the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317698 — net $538.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning as agreed at mediation	$178.25	Cleaning as agreed at mediation
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$538.25
Bond	$2,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$538.25

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $538.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 (3407842-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited: $538.25 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,521.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought a refund of their bond of $2,060.00.
In response, the landlord applied for rent compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 27/6/2024 at $515.00 rent per week.
Following the roll over to a periodic tenancy the tenants gave notice and vacated the premises on 27/7/2025.

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $178.25 for cleaning.
At mediation on 18/8/2025 the parties agreed that $178.25 could be deducted from the bond for the cleaning.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation of $780.00 for carpet cleaning or alternatively $750.00 being the insurance excess if the landlord decided to replace the carpet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit property inspection reports with photographs, dated 26/6/2024 and 28/7/2025 respectively and an invoice from the carpet cleaner.
Further the property manager who did the exit report gave evidence and the carpet cleaner was contacted by telephone and also gave evidence.
The landlord relied on special clause 37 in the tenancy agreement which provided in the special circumstances of the tenants being allowed a pet for them to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
While agreeing that they had an “inside” cat the tenants disputed that there was any odour emanating from the carpets while they lived in the premises and that the property manager had not brought any carpet issues to their attention during the regular three monthly inspections.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There was no suggestion from the landlord that the damage was anything other than careless.
I am persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord, in particular that of the carpet cleaner, that damage was caused during the tenancy to the carpets due to pet urine.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
For the avoidance of doubt the pet clause by itself would not have been sufficient to make the tenants liable for carpet cleaning, without the evidence of the carpet cleaner.
The reason for this is that the clause is inconsistent with the obligations of the tenants under section 40(1)&(2) and therefore not enforceable against them without substantive evidence to prove the carpets actually needed to be professionally cleaned.
I have declined to award the $420.00 included in the carpet cleaning invoice for “Save your carpet guarantee”.
The reason for this is the explanation by the carpet cleaner that this was for replacement of the carpet if the landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning within 28 days.
As the 28 days ended on 28/8/2025 and the landlord had not made a claim against his insurance I consider this a business cost associated with renting premises which the landlord decided to incur and which the tenants are not responsible for.
An award has been made for the balance of the carpet cleaning invoice amounting to $360.00.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is not available to the tenants because they were only partly successful with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317698 — Cleanliness at 51 Somerville Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317698 — Cleanliness at 51 Somerville Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.