What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347746 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 5347746?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347746?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12852464-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347746 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 5347746?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347746?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12852464-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Tavender Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347746 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347746 — net $270.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund carpet cleaning cost paid by tenant	$270.00	15. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Net award	$270.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The applications for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must pay Ann-Marie Joyce Ferguson $270.00 immediately, as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by video/phone.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the cost of professional carpet cleaning she had done, and for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
The tenant has provided detailed written submissions in support of her application. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 1 September 2023 and ended on 7 September 2025.
The tenant made her application soon after the tenancy ended. It seems though that the tenancy was unremarkable. The landlord refunded the bond of $2,600.00 to the tenant in full.
The first issue raised by the tenant concerns the professional carpet cleaning she had done, relying on the tenant information pack on the landlord’s website which states that professional carpet cleaning is required at the end of a tenancy with a receipt to be produced. She seeks a refund of the amount she paid to have the carpets professionally cleaned.
The issues the tenant has referred to in her application arose towards the end of the tenancy when prospective tenants viewed the premises, when a neighbour did some repair work beyond what the tenant had agreed to, and when the final inspection occurred, and a water leak was discovered. The tenant also queried how additional rent she paid to stay ahead was dealt with; it was applied as a rent credit which reduced her final rent payment rather than being paid back as a credit with the bond.
The tenant alleges a breach of privacy, an unauthorised entry by her neighbour for repair work and for what she refers to as emotional and financial distress that have undermined her confidence in the tenancy system. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Should the tenant receive a refund of the amount she paid for professional carpet cleaning? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages against the landlord? Relevant law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Should the tenant receive a refund of the amount she paid for professional carpet cleaning?
The tenant relied on information contained on the landlord’s website that professional carpet cleaning is required at the end of a tenancy with a receipt to be produced. She complied with that, incurring a charge of $270.00. Only later did she become aware that the RTA does not require a tenant to have the carpets professionally cleaned, only that the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord’s representative acknowledged that the website information was incorrect and required amendment.
I find that the tenant probably incurred the carpet cleaning cost unnecessarily relying on the information on the landlord’s website in its tenant pack. That her bond was fully refunded suggests that the premises generally were left in a good condition, in other words, that the tenant did not breach any of her statutory responsibilities.
I order the landlord to refund the tenant the carpet cleaning cost of $270.00.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord?

As I have noted, compensation follows a proven breach. It is not punitive. It aims to restore a party to the position they would have been in but for the breach.
The tenant identified 3 matters for which she seeks compensation. The first issue involved the occasions when prospective tenants viewed the premises. There were 4 different viewings, but it was after the third viewing that the tenant emailed the landlord saying she felt uncomfortable. She said some baking her son had done was stolen at one of the inspections, and some prospective tenants recorded the viewing.
This is not a case where the landlord forced the tenant to allow viewings; she consented to them all. That some prospective tenants behaved inappropriately is not a landlord breach. Nor is the theft of some baking. It is just bad behaviour. Perhaps the viewings could have been better managed. But the tenant has not proved a breach by the landlord for which the Tribunal might award compensation.
The second issue involved an unauthorised entry by the tenant’s neighbour to undertake a roof repair. The tenant described the neighbours as ‘lovely’ noting they had done repairs previously that she approved of. On this occasion she was absent from the premises. When she returned, she noticed that the garage and shed floor had been swept, for which she thanked the neighbour. However, the neighbour also did a roof repair she had not agreed to.
The landlord’s representative said she only became aware of this complaint after the final inspection.
While technically an unauthorised entry to part of the premises, this is not a case that requires any sanction by the Tribunal given the factors identified in Birch. The tenant expressed her concern to the landlord. Had another incident occurred, the Tribunal would take a different view, but it did not. The tenant had previously consented to the neighbour doing some work. While that does not mean permission generally, this was more likely a well-intentioned action by the neighbour rather than a deliberate action that requires a compensatory response.
The third issue involves what the tenant described as being excluded from the final inspection. The inspection was booked and notified to the tenant, but she did not attend. A water leak was discovered near the washing machine and hot water cylinder. The landlord contacted the tenant to find out what happened. She states that the landlord’s representative accused her of causing the damage. A plumber inspected the leak; it was due to a faulty fitting. No claim was therefore made against the tenant.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. Nor does it (nor can it) compensate hurt feelings. Even if the interactions between the tenant and her property manager over the cause of the leak were not ideal, that is not a breach by the landlord that would attract an award of compensation.
The tenant also raised an issue about the way in which a rent credit was handled. She said she paid additional rent as a safeguard and was told it would be paid to her as a rent refund with the bond at the end of the tenancy. Rather, it was applied as a rent credit reducing the amount of rent she needed to pay for her final rent payment.
The tenant said this was frustrating for her and was poor communication. Again, even it if was, there is no basis for compensation because there is no identified landlord breach.
Finally, the tenant referred to the stress she had experienced, financial and emotional. Those are subjective feelings. The Tribunal can acknowledge them but cannot compensate for them. Compensation, as I have noted, follows a proven objective breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Even then, the one does not automatically follow the other. The Tribunal looks to the overall context and circumstances. The tenant has not proved any objective breach by the landlord that would attract an award of compensation in this case. Hurt feelings are not sufficient.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation. Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages against the landlord?
Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, the applying party must identify a defined unlawful act and prove that the act occurred. The tenant has not proven any breach by the landlord that amounts to a defined unlawful act. For that reason, her application for exemplary damages must be dismissed. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $270.00, a refund of the professional carpet cleaning cost she paid when she probably did not need to incur it.
The applications for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
Because the application is mostly unsuccessful, I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as her application is not wholly or substantially successful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its defence to the application is substantially successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347746 — net $270.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund carpet cleaning cost paid by tenant	$270.00	15. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Net award	$270.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The applications for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must pay Ann-Marie Joyce Ferguson $270.00 immediately, as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by video/phone.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the cost of professional carpet cleaning she had done, and for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
The tenant has provided detailed written submissions in support of her application. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 1 September 2023 and ended on 7 September 2025.
The tenant made her application soon after the tenancy ended. It seems though that the tenancy was unremarkable. The landlord refunded the bond of $2,600.00 to the tenant in full.
The first issue raised by the tenant concerns the professional carpet cleaning she had done, relying on the tenant information pack on the landlord’s website which states that professional carpet cleaning is required at the end of a tenancy with a receipt to be produced. She seeks a refund of the amount she paid to have the carpets professionally cleaned.
The issues the tenant has referred to in her application arose towards the end of the tenancy when prospective tenants viewed the premises, when a neighbour did some repair work beyond what the tenant had agreed to, and when the final inspection occurred, and a water leak was discovered. The tenant also queried how additional rent she paid to stay ahead was dealt with; it was applied as a rent credit which reduced her final rent payment rather than being paid back as a credit with the bond.
The tenant alleges a breach of privacy, an unauthorised entry by her neighbour for repair work and for what she refers to as emotional and financial distress that have undermined her confidence in the tenancy system. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Should the tenant receive a refund of the amount she paid for professional carpet cleaning? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages against the landlord? Relevant law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Should the tenant receive a refund of the amount she paid for professional carpet cleaning?
The tenant relied on information contained on the landlord’s website that professional carpet cleaning is required at the end of a tenancy with a receipt to be produced. She complied with that, incurring a charge of $270.00. Only later did she become aware that the RTA does not require a tenant to have the carpets professionally cleaned, only that the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord’s representative acknowledged that the website information was incorrect and required amendment.
I find that the tenant probably incurred the carpet cleaning cost unnecessarily relying on the information on the landlord’s website in its tenant pack. That her bond was fully refunded suggests that the premises generally were left in a good condition, in other words, that the tenant did not breach any of her statutory responsibilities.
I order the landlord to refund the tenant the carpet cleaning cost of $270.00.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord?

As I have noted, compensation follows a proven breach. It is not punitive. It aims to restore a party to the position they would have been in but for the breach.
The tenant identified 3 matters for which she seeks compensation. The first issue involved the occasions when prospective tenants viewed the premises. There were 4 different viewings, but it was after the third viewing that the tenant emailed the landlord saying she felt uncomfortable. She said some baking her son had done was stolen at one of the inspections, and some prospective tenants recorded the viewing.
This is not a case where the landlord forced the tenant to allow viewings; she consented to them all. That some prospective tenants behaved inappropriately is not a landlord breach. Nor is the theft of some baking. It is just bad behaviour. Perhaps the viewings could have been better managed. But the tenant has not proved a breach by the landlord for which the Tribunal might award compensation.
The second issue involved an unauthorised entry by the tenant’s neighbour to undertake a roof repair. The tenant described the neighbours as ‘lovely’ noting they had done repairs previously that she approved of. On this occasion she was absent from the premises. When she returned, she noticed that the garage and shed floor had been swept, for which she thanked the neighbour. However, the neighbour also did a roof repair she had not agreed to.
The landlord’s representative said she only became aware of this complaint after the final inspection.
While technically an unauthorised entry to part of the premises, this is not a case that requires any sanction by the Tribunal given the factors identified in Birch. The tenant expressed her concern to the landlord. Had another incident occurred, the Tribunal would take a different view, but it did not. The tenant had previously consented to the neighbour doing some work. While that does not mean permission generally, this was more likely a well-intentioned action by the neighbour rather than a deliberate action that requires a compensatory response.
The third issue involves what the tenant described as being excluded from the final inspection. The inspection was booked and notified to the tenant, but she did not attend. A water leak was discovered near the washing machine and hot water cylinder. The landlord contacted the tenant to find out what happened. She states that the landlord’s representative accused her of causing the damage. A plumber inspected the leak; it was due to a faulty fitting. No claim was therefore made against the tenant.
The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. Nor does it (nor can it) compensate hurt feelings. Even if the interactions between the tenant and her property manager over the cause of the leak were not ideal, that is not a breach by the landlord that would attract an award of compensation.
The tenant also raised an issue about the way in which a rent credit was handled. She said she paid additional rent as a safeguard and was told it would be paid to her as a rent refund with the bond at the end of the tenancy. Rather, it was applied as a rent credit reducing the amount of rent she needed to pay for her final rent payment.
The tenant said this was frustrating for her and was poor communication. Again, even it if was, there is no basis for compensation because there is no identified landlord breach.
Finally, the tenant referred to the stress she had experienced, financial and emotional. Those are subjective feelings. The Tribunal can acknowledge them but cannot compensate for them. Compensation, as I have noted, follows a proven objective breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Even then, the one does not automatically follow the other. The Tribunal looks to the overall context and circumstances. The tenant has not proved any objective breach by the landlord that would attract an award of compensation in this case. Hurt feelings are not sufficient.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation. Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages against the landlord?
Before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, the applying party must identify a defined unlawful act and prove that the act occurred. The tenant has not proven any breach by the landlord that amounts to a defined unlawful act. For that reason, her application for exemplary damages must be dismissed. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $270.00, a refund of the professional carpet cleaning cost she paid when she probably did not need to incur it.
The applications for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
Because the application is mostly unsuccessful, I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as her application is not wholly or substantially successful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its defence to the application is substantially successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347746 — Cleanliness at 22 Tavender Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347746 — Cleanliness at 22 Tavender Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation against the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions