What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379943 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 5379943?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379943?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379943 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 5379943?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379943?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379943 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379943 — net $842.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: deep clean lower walls and floors	$400.00	Cleaning: deep clean lower walls and floors
Cleaning: heat pump	$414.00	Cleaning: heat pump
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$842.00
Bond	$1,247.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dylan Reid and Jameela-Jouf Gatanela to pay [The landlord/s] $842.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,247.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $842.00 Dylan Reid and Jameela-Jouf Gatanela: $405.00

Reasons

Both parties attended two remote hearings.
This tenancy started on 26 September 2024 and was for a fixed term. The tenancy ended on 29 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for additional deep cleaning of pet urine. The tenants were permitted to keep one cat.
The tenants do not dispute that their cat urinated inside the house. The landlord identified this as an issue from the start of the tenancy and the tenants took remediation steps including professional cleaning and carpet cleaning throughout and at the end of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy cleaning and carpet cleaning were completed on 27 and 29 September 2025. The tenants say there is no evidence that more cleaning was needed. They also say that if the landlord had let them know they were unhappy, they would have asked their cleaner to return (at no extra cost to them).
The landlord claims:- a. $400.00 for deep cleaning of walls and floors; and b. $414.00 for deep cleaning of the heat pump interior and exterior.

What does the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 require?

A tenant must leave premises “reasonably clean and tidy”. Section 40(1)(e)(ii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy agreement includes clauses that say:- a. The tenants agree to have the carpets and home professionally cleaned upon vacate to remove any pet dander and odours; clause 35. b. Any damage done by the pet shall not be fair wear and tear and the tenant shall be responsible for repairing any such damage at the tenant’s expense; clause 37. c. The tenant must leave the entire property reasonably clean and tidy at vacate and will be liable for any costs associated with returning the property to [... unreadable ...] deodorising carpets, de-fleaing and the repair of any damage to the lawns and gardens; clause 37.

Were the premises left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The tenants accept their cat urinated on the carpet in two rooms and on the front of the floor standing heatpump during the tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence that additional cleaning was needed is:- a. An inspection using UV light done by a carpet cleaning contractor (DC), conducted after the tenants’ end of tenancy cleaning and carpet cleaning, revealed glowing areas of cat urine on carpet in two rooms, walls, some cupboard doors, and the front of the heatpump unit. A written report with photos and three video clips were supplied. These show glowing spots and spray shapes in distinct places when a UV torch is shone over carpet, walls, and doors. b. In the video of the heatpump unit (which sits at floor level), DC says there is an odour of cat urine when the cover is taken off revealing the filters inside. c. The landlord says it is inevitable that when the cat urinated on the front grill of the heatpump, some urine will have sprayed into the interior including onto the filters. It’s view is that if there was residual urine on the filters or interior of the unit, an odour would be pushed out of the unit when the heatpump was used, which would be unpleasant for the next tenants. d. The carpet in two rooms was being replaced and the landlord wanted to make sure there was no residual smell before new carpet was put down. The floors and walls up to about a metre off the floor were deep cleaned before the new carpet was installed.
The tenants made submissions that:- a. There is no evidence that the UV light only highlights cat urine. It could show up substances other than this, such as blood or chemicals in cleaning products. They did not present any evidence to substantiate this. b. There is no evidence the inside of the heatpump had urine on it. c. They would have asked their cleaner to go back and do the extra cleaning if they had been told that more in-depth cleaning was needed.
I spoke to the author of the UV light report during the hearing (DC). He explained that his understanding is that the UV torch will highlight urine or bodily fluids.
DC emailed the Tribunal information provided to the company by the suppliers of the UV torch. This says: When you shine the UV light on surfaces, it reveals organic materials, such as urine and saliva, which fluoresce under ultraviolet light. And: UV backlights can help detect pet urine, but they don’t always show every stain. Some carpets, detergents, and past cleaning products can glow under UV light or reduce visibility, even if urine is still present.
The standard of proof required in the Tribunal is “on the balance of probabilities”. This means the landlord does not have to show that there was certainly cat urine remaining on the surfaces that were deep cleaned but only that it was “more probable than not” that there was.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that additional deep cleaning of the floors and walls, and of the interior of the heatpump were required to fully remove the odour of cat urine from the premises.
My reasons for this decision are:- a. The inspection records and communication between the parties from December 2024 onwards satisfy me it is probable that the cat had urinated inside on more than one or two isolated occasions and over an extended period. b. Cat urine is a very pervasive smell and is not easily removed. More than standard cleaning is likely to be required especially when there have been ongoing incidents over an extended period of time. c. The tenants took responsibility and paid for professional cleaning and carpet cleaning throughout the tenancy. However, there is no evidence that the walls and floors, and inside of the heatpump, were deep cleaned (steam cleaned) by their contractors. d. It is probable the urine had gone through into the underlay of the carpet in the two rooms where carpet was being replaced. I accept that it is more probable that not that some may have gone through to the flooring beneath the underlay. It was a reasonable precaution for the landlord to arrange for steam cleaning of the floor before new carpet was laid. e. I accept that at least some of the “spray” and patches shown as glowing by the UV light are cat urine. The shape of the glowing areas supports this. The evidence from the UV light manufacturer does say that detergents and cleaners may also glow but the fact the glowing areas are only in certain spots suggests it is more likely to be an organic substance. If a cleaning product was glowing, it might be expected that much larger areas would show up as the house had been professionally cleaned several times. f. The UV glowing spots are visible on some lower walls and cupboards so deep cleaning these surfaces is reasonable. g. The landlord was not obliged to allow the tenants to arrange additional cleaning. The tenancy had ended, and the landlord has the right to use its own contractors and to have work done as promptly as possible. h. The audio evidence from DC when inspecting the heatpump is that there was a distinct urine odour inside the unit. The tenants cleaned the outside of the heatpump but I accept the landlord’s submission that it is probable that some urine ended up on the inside. It was reasonable to have the inside of the unit cleaned as a precaution because any smell would be blown around the room when the heatpump was turned on.
The claim for deep cleaning is for 50% of the total cost which I consider is fair and reasonable. I award the claim for $400.00.
I accept the work on the heatpump needed to be done by someone qualified to do this work safely as it is an electrical appliance. I award this claim for $414.00. Bond, filing fee, suppression
I note the insurance evidence supplied by the landlord after the hearing.
The landlord has been successful with the claims so is awarded the filing fee and its name is suppressed.
The amount awarded is refunded to the landlord from the balance of the bond and the remainder to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379943 — net $842.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: deep clean lower walls and floors	$400.00	Cleaning: deep clean lower walls and floors
Cleaning: heat pump	$414.00	Cleaning: heat pump
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$842.00
Bond	$1,247.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dylan Reid and Jameela-Jouf Gatanela to pay [The landlord/s] $842.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,247.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $842.00 Dylan Reid and Jameela-Jouf Gatanela: $405.00

Reasons

Both parties attended two remote hearings.
This tenancy started on 26 September 2024 and was for a fixed term. The tenancy ended on 29 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for additional deep cleaning of pet urine. The tenants were permitted to keep one cat.
The tenants do not dispute that their cat urinated inside the house. The landlord identified this as an issue from the start of the tenancy and the tenants took remediation steps including professional cleaning and carpet cleaning throughout and at the end of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy cleaning and carpet cleaning were completed on 27 and 29 September 2025. The tenants say there is no evidence that more cleaning was needed. They also say that if the landlord had let them know they were unhappy, they would have asked their cleaner to return (at no extra cost to them).
The landlord claims:- a. $400.00 for deep cleaning of walls and floors; and b. $414.00 for deep cleaning of the heat pump interior and exterior.

What does the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 require?

A tenant must leave premises “reasonably clean and tidy”. Section 40(1)(e)(ii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy agreement includes clauses that say:- a. The tenants agree to have the carpets and home professionally cleaned upon vacate to remove any pet dander and odours; clause 35. b. Any damage done by the pet shall not be fair wear and tear and the tenant shall be responsible for repairing any such damage at the tenant’s expense; clause 37. c. The tenant must leave the entire property reasonably clean and tidy at vacate and will be liable for any costs associated with returning the property to [... unreadable ...] deodorising carpets, de-fleaing and the repair of any damage to the lawns and gardens; clause 37.

Were the premises left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The tenants accept their cat urinated on the carpet in two rooms and on the front of the floor standing heatpump during the tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence that additional cleaning was needed is:- a. An inspection using UV light done by a carpet cleaning contractor (DC), conducted after the tenants’ end of tenancy cleaning and carpet cleaning, revealed glowing areas of cat urine on carpet in two rooms, walls, some cupboard doors, and the front of the heatpump unit. A written report with photos and three video clips were supplied. These show glowing spots and spray shapes in distinct places when a UV torch is shone over carpet, walls, and doors. b. In the video of the heatpump unit (which sits at floor level), DC says there is an odour of cat urine when the cover is taken off revealing the filters inside. c. The landlord says it is inevitable that when the cat urinated on the front grill of the heatpump, some urine will have sprayed into the interior including onto the filters. It’s view is that if there was residual urine on the filters or interior of the unit, an odour would be pushed out of the unit when the heatpump was used, which would be unpleasant for the next tenants. d. The carpet in two rooms was being replaced and the landlord wanted to make sure there was no residual smell before new carpet was put down. The floors and walls up to about a metre off the floor were deep cleaned before the new carpet was installed.
The tenants made submissions that:- a. There is no evidence that the UV light only highlights cat urine. It could show up substances other than this, such as blood or chemicals in cleaning products. They did not present any evidence to substantiate this. b. There is no evidence the inside of the heatpump had urine on it. c. They would have asked their cleaner to go back and do the extra cleaning if they had been told that more in-depth cleaning was needed.
I spoke to the author of the UV light report during the hearing (DC). He explained that his understanding is that the UV torch will highlight urine or bodily fluids.
DC emailed the Tribunal information provided to the company by the suppliers of the UV torch. This says: When you shine the UV light on surfaces, it reveals organic materials, such as urine and saliva, which fluoresce under ultraviolet light. And: UV backlights can help detect pet urine, but they don’t always show every stain. Some carpets, detergents, and past cleaning products can glow under UV light or reduce visibility, even if urine is still present.
The standard of proof required in the Tribunal is “on the balance of probabilities”. This means the landlord does not have to show that there was certainly cat urine remaining on the surfaces that were deep cleaned but only that it was “more probable than not” that there was.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that additional deep cleaning of the floors and walls, and of the interior of the heatpump were required to fully remove the odour of cat urine from the premises.
My reasons for this decision are:- a. The inspection records and communication between the parties from December 2024 onwards satisfy me it is probable that the cat had urinated inside on more than one or two isolated occasions and over an extended period. b. Cat urine is a very pervasive smell and is not easily removed. More than standard cleaning is likely to be required especially when there have been ongoing incidents over an extended period of time. c. The tenants took responsibility and paid for professional cleaning and carpet cleaning throughout the tenancy. However, there is no evidence that the walls and floors, and inside of the heatpump, were deep cleaned (steam cleaned) by their contractors. d. It is probable the urine had gone through into the underlay of the carpet in the two rooms where carpet was being replaced. I accept that it is more probable that not that some may have gone through to the flooring beneath the underlay. It was a reasonable precaution for the landlord to arrange for steam cleaning of the floor before new carpet was laid. e. I accept that at least some of the “spray” and patches shown as glowing by the UV light are cat urine. The shape of the glowing areas supports this. The evidence from the UV light manufacturer does say that detergents and cleaners may also glow but the fact the glowing areas are only in certain spots suggests it is more likely to be an organic substance. If a cleaning product was glowing, it might be expected that much larger areas would show up as the house had been professionally cleaned several times. f. The UV glowing spots are visible on some lower walls and cupboards so deep cleaning these surfaces is reasonable. g. The landlord was not obliged to allow the tenants to arrange additional cleaning. The tenancy had ended, and the landlord has the right to use its own contractors and to have work done as promptly as possible. h. The audio evidence from DC when inspecting the heatpump is that there was a distinct urine odour inside the unit. The tenants cleaned the outside of the heatpump but I accept the landlord’s submission that it is probable that some urine ended up on the inside. It was reasonable to have the inside of the unit cleaned as a precaution because any smell would be blown around the room when the heatpump was turned on.
The claim for deep cleaning is for 50% of the total cost which I consider is fair and reasonable. I award the claim for $400.00.
I accept the work on the heatpump needed to be done by someone qualified to do this work safely as it is an electrical appliance. I award this claim for $414.00. Bond, filing fee, suppression
I note the insurance evidence supplied by the landlord after the hearing.
The landlord has been successful with the claims so is awarded the filing fee and its name is suppressed.
The amount awarded is refunded to the landlord from the balance of the bond and the remainder to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379943 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379943 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 require?

Were the premises left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 require?

Were the premises left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions