Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5327342 — Cleanliness
Decided 6 Jan 2026 · Published 6 Jan 2026 · Application 5327342
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Jane-Marie Beazley must pay [The landlord/s] $1,579.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended today’s video hearing. The tenant did not attend, so was called twice on the phone number in the application. Neither of those calls were answered. I am satisfied that the tenant was notified of today’s hearing and have proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning, stain removal, patch repair, change of locks, heat bulb lamp replacement and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 1
- The tenancy ended on 16 July 2025 by Tribunal order.
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 conducted an inspection of the property on the 22 July and provided a copy of the inspection photographs and report to the tribunal. The photographs show a premises that has been tidied but not cleaned. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and that the cleaning that was done by the landlord’s cleaner was necessary to remedy the breach. I therefore award the landlord the cost of cleaning including carpet cleaning, which I find was required due to the stains in the carpet that occurred during the tenant’s tenancy.
- The landlord also seeks the cost of changing the locks. The landlord says that this was necessary due to the tenancy having to be terminated by the tribunal. The tenant handed back all the keys.
- It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the premises are secure for the next tenants. If a tenant does not return keys, then the tenant might be liable for the change of the locks because the tenant has caused the premises to not be secure, because the landlord does not know who has keys or access to the premises, and in those situations the Tribunal will usually order the tenant to pay for the change of locks. However, in this instance, the tenant handed back all of the keys. There is no evidence that the tenant has given keys to anyone else or made copies, and therefore the decision to change the locks is the landlord’s decision and the tenant is not responsible for this cost. The landlord’s claim for change of locks is not proven and is dismissed.
- The landlord also claims that the heat bulb in the upstairs bathroom had blown, and the tenant is responsible for this. However, the landlord accepted that the heatlamp bulb was not new at the beginning of the tenancy. This means that the heatlamp bulb was more than a year old, and likely to be much older. I find that the heatlamp bulb more than likely wore out and as such the tenant is not liable for replacing it. 1 [Citation redacted]
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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- I am satisfied that the tenant stained the carpet during her tenancy, because there are stains in the exit report that are not in the entry report. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlord says that the stains were unable to be removed by the carpet shampoo. He had photographs taken which he submitted to the Tribunal that showed the stains after the carpet shampoo. The landlord had [carpet cleaner] use specialist stain removers on the stains, and they came out. The tenant is liable for this cost.
- I am also satisfied that the tenant damaged the carpet at the top of the stairs by having a sticky substance on the carpet (the landlord was not sure if this was glue or chewing gum), the stain could not be removed and the landlord had the carpet replaced with a small square from the wardrobe. I have awarded some of this cost to take into account betterment and depreciation.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- 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. Filing fee and name suppression.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded the landlord name suppression as requested in the application.