Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5388986 — Cleanliness at 7 Reserve Road, Balcairn, RD 1, Amberley 7481
Decided 29 April 2026 · Published 29 April 2026 · Application 5388986
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Amberley
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Merrett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $440.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $440.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $300.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Replace cracked fire box bricks | $90.00 | Replace cracked fire box bricks | |
| Compensation - damaged carpets | $50.00 | Compensation - damaged carpets | |
| Net award | $440.00 | ||
| Bond | $1,950.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $440.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5388986 — net $440.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Replace cracked fire box bricks
- Amount
- $90.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace cracked fire box bricks
Compensation - damaged carpets
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation - damaged carpets
Net award
Landlord $440.00
Bond
Landlord $1,950.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $440.00
Dismissed claims
- Rent For The Sunday 2 November — because the evidence establishes that the tenant did fully vacate the premises by 8pm on Saturday 1 November (the landlord’s witness supported the tenant’s evi…
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Melissa Bronwyn Milne to pay Candice Emma Sherie Mangles $440.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,950.00 (BN-00099556) immediately apportioned as follows: Candice Emma Sherie Mangles: $440.00 Melissa Bronwyn Milne: $1,510.00
- The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearings.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Does the tenant owe rent?
- The tenancy was due to end on Friday 31 October 2025. The landlord’s agent emailed the tenant confirming that she owed $185.74 being two days rent to 31 October. The tenant paid that sum on 30 October. The tenant and the landlord’s agent subsequently agreed to extend the tenancy to the following day, Saturday 1 November, and the tenant paid an extra $92.85 being rent for the additional day. The landlord later discovered that the rent owing to 31 October should have been $278.59 (three days rent), not $185.74. The landlord therefore claims the additional day’s rent plus rent for Sunday 2 November 2025 on the basis that the keys were not handed over (to the landlord’s agent) until Monday 3 November.
- I dismiss the claim for rent. The landlord (through her agent) made an unequivocal representation to the tenant as to the rent payable and the tenant acted on that representation by paying the amount requested. I therefore find that the landlord is now estopped from going back on that representation.
- The claim for rent for the Sunday 2 November is dismissed because the evidence establishes that the tenant did fully vacate the premises by 8pm on Saturday 1 November (the landlord’s witness supported the tenant’s evidence on this). I accept the tenant’s evidence that she left the keys at the premises for collection by the landlord’s (or her agent) on 2 November. Moreover, failure to return keys at the end of the tenancy does not make the tenant liable for rent until the keys are returned. If the tenant does not return the keys, the landlord may have the locks/keys changed and claim the cost of doing so from the tenant.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- The landlord claims the sum of $363.96 to clean the premises, including the carpets which the landlord claims were contaminated by cat urine and faeces.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant is in breach of the obligation in section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) to leave the carpets reasonably clean. There was no dispute that the tenant kept cats at the property, and she could not say with any certainty whether the cats may have urinated on the carpets.
- However, I find on the evidence before me, in particular the photographs, that the tenant did leave the premises (with the exception of the carpets) reasonably clean overall. There will generally always be some minor additional cleaning required at the end of a tenancy and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost. I therefore dismiss the claim for cleaning other than the carpets.
- In the circumstances I consider the sum of $300.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the carpet cleaning.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they or others at the premises with her permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- The landlord claims the sum of $516.95 to replace all the fire bricks inside the wood box and $300.00 for disposal of the carpets. She claims that cleaning did not remove the cat urine smell from the carpets, and they required replacement. She said that she is only claiming the costs (based on an estimate) to dispose of the old carpets.
- I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpets were damaged during the tenancy by cat urine that could not be removed by cleaning. I also find that the damage is beyond fair war and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The landlord said that she is not claiming for the cost to replace the carpets (which were approximately 12 years old and therefore likely near the end of their useful life), she is only claiming the cost to dump the old carpets. She said that she has disposing of some of the carpets herself and she provided two receipts for the cost incurred to date to dump them. In the circumstances I consider the amounts paid as shown in the receipts is reasonable to compensate her for the carpets. Tribunal application fee
- The landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims, and I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5388986?
The tribunal order states: Melissa Bronwyn Milne to pay Candice Emma Sherie Mangles $440.00 from the
How much money was awarded in case 5388986?
Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cracked Fire Box Bricks: $90.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388986?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388986?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13515598-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.