How much money was awarded in case 5372501?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372501?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5372501?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372501?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13072137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372501 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372501 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The landlord’s application for carpet cleaning and filing fee is not proven and therefore dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to release the remaining bond of $253.00 to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 3 February 2026.

This is a dispute about whether the tenants are liable for the cost of carpet cleaning at the property at the end of the tenancy. The relevant law.

At the end of the tenancy tenants are required to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. This includes carpets.

What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.

Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4 Each party’s submissions.

The landlord claims that the carpet was dirty and was the cause of an unpleasant smell at the property. The landlord claims that in February 2023, when she conducted an inspection that she noticed a dog at the property, despite the tenancy agreement stipulating that dogs were not permitted. The landlord says that at the final inspection she went through the items with the tenant, including the carpet, that she did not think met the standard, and the tenant agreed to have the commercial carpets cleaned. She says that as the tenants did not have the carpets commercially cleaned then she had to clean them, and she seeks the costs of carpet cleaning.

The tenants say that the carpets were not dirty at the end of the tenancy, and they did not cause any smell at the property. They say that they never agreed to have the carpet commercially cleaned. The tenants say that the carpets are old and beyond their useful lifespan. They say that the former tenant had 2 dogs and 2 cats and young children and that when they came to the property the carpets were dirty and stained and that there was an unusual odour at the house which they said that they complained about to the former tenancy manager.

The tenants say that they looked after a friend’s dog for them after their friend was displaced due to the anniversary day floods in 2023. They say that this was only for a short time, and they point to the fact that the landlord never saw the dog again at more recent inspections.

They say that they cleaned the carpet after the dog left, because they had told the agent that they would do that. They used a Rug Doctor. They say that before they vacated the property, they cleaned the carpet again, as requested, by using a Rug Doctor.

They also submitted that the landlord had the property recarpeted after they left the property. This was accepted by the agent, who claims that it was necessary due to the smell. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 Outcome.

This is the landlord claim. To be successful, the landlord would need to prove that it is more likely than not that the carpets were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. I have considered all the evidence and the submissions of both parties, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for carpet cleaning for the following reasons: a. There were no photographs of the carpet provided by either party that show me the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. b. Smells are subjective. There is no evidence from independent persons to say that the carpet smelt. I accept that both parties say that there was an usual smell at the property, but there was no evidence that proved it was likely that the source of the smell was the carpet. c. The landlord confirmed that in the intervening inspections since February 2023 she had not noted any smell in the inspection reports. d. The landlord noted that the carpets needed shampooing in the February 2023. The tenants say that they did that, and shampooed them again at the end of the tenancy. The tenants had used a rug doctor. There is no requirement for tenants to have the carpets commercially clean. Commercial cleaning is more than the standard required for reasonably clean and is only necessary if the carpets are very soiled or dirty. If a landlord wishes to commercially clean the carpets in between tenants, then they may do so, but this is not a cost that can be automatically passed onto a tenant. The landlord must first prove a breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy and then show that commercial cleaning was needed to remedy the breach.

The landlord has not proven their claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The tenants are the successful party and are entitled to name suppression as requested.

The remaining bond is to be released to the tenant.

As the landlord has not been successful in their claim then they are not entitled to the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The landlord’s application for carpet cleaning and filing fee is not proven and therefore dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to release the remaining bond of $253.00 to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 3 February 2026.

This is a dispute about whether the tenants are liable for the cost of carpet cleaning at the property at the end of the tenancy. The relevant law.

At the end of the tenancy tenants are required to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. This includes carpets.

The landlord has not proven their claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The tenants are the successful party and are entitled to name suppression as requested.

The remaining bond is to be released to the tenant.

As the landlord has not been successful in their claim then they are not entitled to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372501 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372501 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions