What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336361 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Fridd to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Olutoba &

How much money was awarded in case 5336361?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $103.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336361?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12690932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336361 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Fridd to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Olutoba &

How much money was awarded in case 5336361?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $103.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336361?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12690932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 11 Redbridge Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336361 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336361 — net $612.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (agreed at mediation 22 Sep 2025	$103.57	Rent arrears (agreed at mediation 22 Sep 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: 6 hours	$310.50	Cleaning: 6 hours
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$612.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.07

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video-conference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

The rent arrears of $103.57 awarded was previously agreed in mediation (dated 22 September 2025) with all other claims referred to the Tribunal for determining. The intended payment of the rent arrears from the bond resulted in all of the bond being released in error to the landlord. This order includes the rent arrears for completeness.

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. Cleaning/rubbish/weeding

The landlord claimed the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

In support of that claim the landlord provided an invoice for cleaning, rubbish removal, and weeding. Photo were provided. The tenant claimed to have left the premises reasonable clean and tidy. That claim defies the evidence. I am satisfied that further cleaning was required. The oven was in poor condition, as was the shower. Other areas were missed and some walls were stained.

The rubbish claim was based on one hour of contractor labour only. The rubbish was left in rubbish bins but the landlord choose to have them emptied as a one-off exercise rather than utilise the scheduled pick up some two days after the final inspection. No evidence of actual dumping costs was provided. I consider the cost could (and may have been) mitigated. However, the tenant failed to ensure the bins were placed for pick up, or make other arrangements. I have allowed for reasonable cost of removal of rubbish in the award.

There was an outside area of gravel with numerous weeds protruding. The tenant claimed to have sprayed the weeds some two week earlier. The landlord claims the contractor’s hand weeded the area. There are no completion photos of the areas after any contractor effort. I understand the area has no weed mat or equivalent barrier. Given the weed coverage in photos this appears correct.

I decline the cost of weeding as I am not satisfied that the removal of weeds from the areas with gravel as shown, and without some weed barrier, should be a tenant responsibility at the end of the tenancy.

Having considered the submissions and evidence, I consider the award of six hours labour is a fair reflection of the evidence of total effort required for cleaning and rubbish removal. Smoke smell

Two claims pertaining to residual smoke smell were sought.

The landlord advised the tenant of the problem on 1 July 2025 (“...property absolutely sticks of cigarette smoke.”) The tenant did not dispute in the reply the cause of any smell, rather querying the need as he believed the carpet was going to be replaced. He asked, and had it confirmed, that the notice was “advisory” as the tenancy had not yet ended. If that advice was acted on it was not apparent. He had already used his own ozone machine in the premises.

At the hearing the tenant denied ever smoking in the premises. The response to the landlord message in July 2025 regarding the “stink” was not so certain.

The routine inspections reports provided do not raise smoke smell as an issue during the tenancy, however the use of burning incense sticks during some inspections was observed. The need for better airing of the premises was a theme across the inspections.

No smoking was permitted by the tenancy agreement, but if evidence of smoking was observed, it was never clearly raised as an issue, nor was any breach notice served on the tenant.

The landlord advised the curtains were all replaced after the tenancy regardless, due to the age and condition, but she noted the smell affected them as well.

The first invoice claimed was for a deodorising treatment of the carpet at a cost of $170.00.

The second invoice was for a second ozone treatment, this time by a contractor over several days after carpet replacement at a cost of $561.20.

I consider it more than likely there was a lingering smoke smell at the end of the tenancy that required treatment. On that basis, given the curtains were all replaced, the carpet deodorising cost is awarded. Such chattels/fixtures are often the main repositories of such unwanted smoking smells and once both are returned to a fresh state, the smell problem is resolved – especially in combination with airing.

I am less sure about the second ozone treatment. Such an expensive step being a tenant liability, after the curtains and carpets were resolved, would require evidence of heavy contamination throughout. The lack of any prior issue regarding smoke smell being raised by the landlord during this three-year tenancy is considered, as is that any such heavy contamination should be apparent during some inspections despite an incense smell from the kitchen only (no incense was noted burning elsewhere, such as the bedrooms).

Some exit photos of the ceiling may have supported the claimed extent of smoke contamination but there was no suitable comparison in the limited entry photos to confirm that.

I dismiss the claim for ozone treatment. It not been proven to the required standard as a tenant liability. Filing fee

The landlord has been substantially successful, and I return the application filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336361 — net $612.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (agreed at mediation 22 Sep 2025	$103.57	Rent arrears (agreed at mediation 22 Sep 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: 6 hours	$310.50	Cleaning: 6 hours
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$612.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.07