What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343301 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343301?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343301 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343301?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Cook Street, West End, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343301 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (5192529-002) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 December 2012.
The tenancy began on 30 July 2021 and ended on 7 July 2025. The tenant kept a dog at the premises with the landlord’s permission. The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the carpet was soiled and smelt like urine. The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 for professional carpet cleaning, which the tenant disputes.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? The law
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the carpet was soiled and smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant denies this and claims they had the carpet professionally cleaned, including pet deodorisation. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
In support of the landlord’s claim, they submitted an invoice from Carpet Tech for $300.00 which notes: Carpet cleaning – deoderise/sanitise all carpet The carpet was quite soiled and we treated areas that appeared to be affected by urine.
This was the only evidence submitted in support of the landlord’s claim. No photographs of the carpet were submitted. No statements from other people who visited the premises at the end of the tenancy were submitted. The landlord did not call the person who cleaned the carpet as a witness to elaborate on the comments in the invoice.
The tenancy was four years long and the tenant kept a dog with permission of the landlord for the entire tenancy. No routine inspections mention anything about the carpet being soiled or smelling like urine. The landlord claims this is because the premises were ventilated when routine inspections occurred, whereas the premises were locked up at the end of the tenancy. This is a reasonably plausible explanation about why the carpet might have smelt at the end and not during the tenancy however, the evidence equally supports the tenant’s claim that the absence of a smell during the tenancy means it is unlikely there was a smell at the end.
The tenant gave evidence their dog never urinated inside during the tenancy. The tenant claims their dog was never a puppy during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence their dog was 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence. A puppy is more likely to urinate inside the premises than an adult dog, because puppies are not toilet trained. The fact that the tenant’s dog was an adult, means it is unlikely they urinated inside the premises. This further supports the tenant’s claim that the carpet did not smell at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted correspondence from the landlord at the end of the tenancy regarding the carpet. Nothing is mentioned about the carpet smelling. The landlord sent the tenant the following email on 8 July 2025: ... Carpets: • As a pet was present at the property, professional carpet cleaning is required. Please let me know if you would like us to organise this on your behalf, or if you have someone arranged to carry this out.
The basis upon which the landlord asks the tenant to have the carpet professionally cleaned is because the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to do this, rather than because the carpet smells. The landlord did not believe the tenant had had the carpet professionally cleaned and, in another email, sent to the tenant on 10 July 2025, the landlord states: ... Regarding the carpet cleaning, thank you for the receipt. However, we are unable to accept the invoice in its current form as there are no contact details for the business or GST number listed. Could you please provide the full contact details of the carpet cleaning service used? Additionally, from our inspection, it does not appear that the carpets were cleaned – there were no visible signs or scent of a recent clean. Please clarify this.
From these communications, it appears that the basis upon which the landlord did not believe the tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned was because the invoice was missing some details and there was no residual chemical smell. This is rather than because the carpet smelt like urine.
These emails from the landlord were sent at the end of the tenancy and are good evidence of the landlord’s observations regarding the carpet at that time. The fact that the landlord does not mention the carpet being soiled or smelling like urine supports the tenant’s claim that this was not the case.
The tenant gave evidence they had the carpet professionally cleaned by Hollie Lissington. Ms Lissington is the sister of one of the tenants. She was called as a witness in the hearing and gave evidence that she works as a national manager at a nationwide cleaning company. Ms Lissington gave evidence that she also runs a side business professionally cleaning carpets. On or around 4 July 2025, Ms Lissington claims she professionally cleaned the carpet at the tenancy address. Ms Lissington gave evidence she completed a general carpet clean and pet deodorisation. She claims the carpet did not smell like urine and there were no noticeable stains, except for one stain that appeared to be a milk like substance. Ms Lissington gave evidence that she completed a pet deodorisation as a matter of course, because the tenant kept a dog at the premises, not because the premises smelt like urine. She claims it is a standard service she recommends whenever there is a pet. Ms Lissington claims she purposely did not use any scent when undertaking the carpet cleaning, which is why there was no chemical smell at the end.
I have considered the fact that Ms Lissington is the sister of one of the tenant’s when assessing the reliability and credibility of her evidence. I have also considered the fact that her business is not searchable on the internet. Ms Lissington’s business is a small business that she runs alongside her fulltime employment. It is not unusual for a business of this kind to not be searchable on the internet. Ms Lissington gave evidence under promise that she completed a professional carpet clean at the premises. I consider it unlikely that she would perjure herself and risk prosecution for giving false evidence to support her brother in a claim involving $300.00. For these reasons, I accept the evidence of Ms Lissington. I am convinced the tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, which further reduces the likelihood it was soiled and smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
I find the weight of the evidence leans in favour of the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the carpet was soiled or smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven their claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (5192529-002) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 December 2012.
The tenancy began on 30 July 2021 and ended on 7 July 2025. The tenant kept a dog at the premises with the landlord’s permission. The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the carpet was soiled and smelt like urine. The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 for professional carpet cleaning, which the tenant disputes.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? The law
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the carpet was soiled and smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant denies this and claims they had the carpet professionally cleaned, including pet deodorisation. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
In support of the landlord’s claim, they submitted an invoice from Carpet Tech for $300.00 which notes: Carpet cleaning – deoderise/sanitise all carpet The carpet was quite soiled and we treated areas that appeared to be affected by urine.
This was the only evidence submitted in support of the landlord’s claim. No photographs of the carpet were submitted. No statements from other people who visited the premises at the end of the tenancy were submitted. The landlord did not call the person who cleaned the carpet as a witness to elaborate on the comments in the invoice.
The tenancy was four years long and the tenant kept a dog with permission of the landlord for the entire tenancy. No routine inspections mention anything about the carpet being soiled or smelling like urine. The landlord claims this is because the premises were ventilated when routine inspections occurred, whereas the premises were locked up at the end of the tenancy. This is a reasonably plausible explanation about why the carpet might have smelt at the end and not during the tenancy however, the evidence equally supports the tenant’s claim that the absence of a smell during the tenancy means it is unlikely there was a smell at the end.
The tenant gave evidence their dog never urinated inside during the tenancy. The tenant claims their dog was never a puppy during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence their dog was 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence. A puppy is more likely to urinate inside the premises than an adult dog, because puppies are not toilet trained. The fact that the tenant’s dog was an adult, means it is unlikely they urinated inside the premises. This further supports the tenant’s claim that the carpet did not smell at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted correspondence from the landlord at the end of the tenancy regarding the carpet. Nothing is mentioned about the carpet smelling. The landlord sent the tenant the following email on 8 July 2025: ... Carpets: • As a pet was present at the property, professional carpet cleaning is required. Please let me know if you would like us to organise this on your behalf, or if you have someone arranged to carry this out.
The basis upon which the landlord asks the tenant to have the carpet professionally cleaned is because the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to do this, rather than because the carpet smells. The landlord did not believe the tenant had had the carpet professionally cleaned and, in another email, sent to the tenant on 10 July 2025, the landlord states: ... Regarding the carpet cleaning, thank you for the receipt. However, we are unable to accept the invoice in its current form as there are no contact details for the business or GST number listed. Could you please provide the full contact details of the carpet cleaning service used? Additionally, from our inspection, it does not appear that the carpets were cleaned – there were no visible signs or scent of a recent clean. Please clarify this.
From these communications, it appears that the basis upon which the landlord did not believe the tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned was because the invoice was missing some details and there was no residual chemical smell. This is rather than because the carpet smelt like urine.
These emails from the landlord were sent at the end of the tenancy and are good evidence of the landlord’s observations regarding the carpet at that time. The fact that the landlord does not mention the carpet being soiled or smelling like urine supports the tenant’s claim that this was not the case.
The tenant gave evidence they had the carpet professionally cleaned by Hollie Lissington. Ms Lissington is the sister of one of the tenants. She was called as a witness in the hearing and gave evidence that she works as a national manager at a nationwide cleaning company. Ms Lissington gave evidence that she also runs a side business professionally cleaning carpets. On or around 4 July 2025, Ms Lissington claims she professionally cleaned the carpet at the tenancy address. Ms Lissington gave evidence she completed a general carpet clean and pet deodorisation. She claims the carpet did not smell like urine and there were no noticeable stains, except for one stain that appeared to be a milk like substance. Ms Lissington gave evidence that she completed a pet deodorisation as a matter of course, because the tenant kept a dog at the premises, not because the premises smelt like urine. She claims it is a standard service she recommends whenever there is a pet. Ms Lissington claims she purposely did not use any scent when undertaking the carpet cleaning, which is why there was no chemical smell at the end.
I have considered the fact that Ms Lissington is the sister of one of the tenant’s when assessing the reliability and credibility of her evidence. I have also considered the fact that her business is not searchable on the internet. Ms Lissington’s business is a small business that she runs alongside her fulltime employment. It is not unusual for a business of this kind to not be searchable on the internet. Ms Lissington gave evidence under promise that she completed a professional carpet clean at the premises. I consider it unlikely that she would perjure herself and risk prosecution for giving false evidence to support her brother in a claim involving $300.00. For these reasons, I accept the evidence of Ms Lissington. I am convinced the tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, which further reduces the likelihood it was soiled and smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
I find the weight of the evidence leans in favour of the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the carpet was soiled or smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven their claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343301 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Cook Street, West End, Palmerston

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343301 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 104 Cook Street, West End, Palmerston

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.