What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396261 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 5396261?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396568-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396261 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 5396261?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396568-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Taranaki Street, Kuripuni, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396261 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396261 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (stain removal	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning (stain removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Bond	$1,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Courtney Marie Teahan to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $228.00 Courtney Marie Teahan: $1,512.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video and teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on or about 23 May 2025 and ended on 7 November 2025. The tenant resided at the premises with her two children.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonable clean condition. The landlord claims that the tenant, or an individual residing with the tenant, has smoked inside the premises resulting in the need for extensive professional cleaning.
The tenant does not accept the landlord’s allegation.
The landlord says that they first noticed the smoke odour at the end of the tenancy. A routine inspection by the landlord in September 2025 did not indicate any smoke contamination.
The landlord says that they purchased the house in November 2024 and undertook a full renovation prior to the start of the tenancy. Evidence of this was provided by the landlord with their application. The landlord says the walls were repainted and the flooring replaced with new carpet. The bathrooms were also replaced.
The landlord provided a report from Jae Cleaning dated 10 November 2025, The report advised as follows: • Very smelly throughout home with smoke • All curtains and carpets smell • Walls and ceilings need cleaning • Stain in carpet needs treating
The tenant says that she has never smoked. She also states that she was pregnant at the time of living at the premises.
The landlord also claims that the tenant left a stain on the carpet which could not be removed. The tenant accepted responsibility for the stain.
The landlord says that there was a tenant living in a movable bus at the back of the property who moved in around September last year. He was a tenant and on a tenancy agreement for 6 months. The back tenant lived within very close proximity to this tenancy.
No one was occupying the neighbouring area prior to September 2025. The landlord says the area between the tenant’s house and the bus is approximately 5 meters. The tenant says 3 to 4 meters.
The tenant says that any cigarette odour is more likely attributable to smoke emanating from a neighbouring tenant who resided in close proximity.
The back tenant lived in a movable bus with his wife. This tenant says that her children would often smell cigarette smoke when he smoked. The tenant says that she only had one friend come over on one occasion who smoked. She says she moved from the address due to a lack of privacy from the tenant with the bus.
The tenant accepts the carpet stain saying that her daughter spilt something during Halloween.
The landlord says that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the parties, including email communications.
I have also had regard to the oral evidence received during today’s hearing. Essentially, the landlord’s position is that the house had been fully renovated just prior to the tenant moving in. What is of concern is that nothing was detected by the landlord during their routine inspection on or about 26 September 2025. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the back tenant moved on to property over the fence that same month. The evidence was that he often smoked.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established this claim to the required standard. The tenant denies smoking inside and states that any cigarette odour was caused by a neighbouring tenant, who moved in next door in September 2025 and smoked within close proximity to the premises.
Notably, the landlord’s own routine inspection in September 2025 detected no cigarette smell within the tenant’s property. In the absence of any evidence of cigarette odour or damage at the time of the inspection, and given the plausible explanation provided by the tenant regarding the source of the smell, I am not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
On the balance of probabilities, the evidence does not persuade me that the tenant is responsible for the cigarette smoke contamination.
The claim is dismissed. Carpet stain
The tenant accepts the stain on the carpet which she says was caused by one of her children during Halloween. The landlord provided a tax invoice from JAE Limited dated 21 November 2025 confirming the cost to treat the carpet.
Based on the invoice provided I allow the landlord’s claim for professional treatment of the carpet stain and award reduced compensation of $200.00 as a reasonable contribution towards the cost of professionally treating the stain, cleaning the carpet and travel costs.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396261 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (stain removal	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning (stain removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Bond	$1,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Courtney Marie Teahan to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $228.00 Courtney Marie Teahan: $1,512.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video and teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on or about 23 May 2025 and ended on 7 November 2025. The tenant resided at the premises with her two children.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonable clean condition. The landlord claims that the tenant, or an individual residing with the tenant, has smoked inside the premises resulting in the need for extensive professional cleaning.
The tenant does not accept the landlord’s allegation.
The landlord says that they first noticed the smoke odour at the end of the tenancy. A routine inspection by the landlord in September 2025 did not indicate any smoke contamination.
The landlord says that they purchased the house in November 2024 and undertook a full renovation prior to the start of the tenancy. Evidence of this was provided by the landlord with their application. The landlord says the walls were repainted and the flooring replaced with new carpet. The bathrooms were also replaced.
The landlord provided a report from Jae Cleaning dated 10 November 2025, The report advised as follows: • Very smelly throughout home with smoke • All curtains and carpets smell • Walls and ceilings need cleaning • Stain in carpet needs treating
The tenant says that she has never smoked. She also states that she was pregnant at the time of living at the premises.
The landlord also claims that the tenant left a stain on the carpet which could not be removed. The tenant accepted responsibility for the stain.
The landlord says that there was a tenant living in a movable bus at the back of the property who moved in around September last year. He was a tenant and on a tenancy agreement for 6 months. The back tenant lived within very close proximity to this tenancy.
No one was occupying the neighbouring area prior to September 2025. The landlord says the area between the tenant’s house and the bus is approximately 5 meters. The tenant says 3 to 4 meters.
The tenant says that any cigarette odour is more likely attributable to smoke emanating from a neighbouring tenant who resided in close proximity.
The back tenant lived in a movable bus with his wife. This tenant says that her children would often smell cigarette smoke when he smoked. The tenant says that she only had one friend come over on one occasion who smoked. She says she moved from the address due to a lack of privacy from the tenant with the bus.
The tenant accepts the carpet stain saying that her daughter spilt something during Halloween.
The landlord says that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the parties, including email communications.
I have also had regard to the oral evidence received during today’s hearing. Essentially, the landlord’s position is that the house had been fully renovated just prior to the tenant moving in. What is of concern is that nothing was detected by the landlord during their routine inspection on or about 26 September 2025. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the back tenant moved on to property over the fence that same month. The evidence was that he often smoked.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established this claim to the required standard. The tenant denies smoking inside and states that any cigarette odour was caused by a neighbouring tenant, who moved in next door in September 2025 and smoked within close proximity to the premises.
Notably, the landlord’s own routine inspection in September 2025 detected no cigarette smell within the tenant’s property. In the absence of any evidence of cigarette odour or damage at the time of the inspection, and given the plausible explanation provided by the tenant regarding the source of the smell, I am not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
On the balance of probabilities, the evidence does not persuade me that the tenant is responsible for the cigarette smoke contamination.
The claim is dismissed. Carpet stain
The tenant accepts the stain on the carpet which she says was caused by one of her children during Halloween. The landlord provided a tax invoice from JAE Limited dated 21 November 2025 confirming the cost to treat the carpet.
Based on the invoice provided I allow the landlord’s claim for professional treatment of the carpet stain and award reduced compensation of $200.00 as a reasonable contribution towards the cost of professionally treating the stain, cleaning the carpet and travel costs.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396261 — Cleanliness at 11 Taranaki Street, Kuripuni, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396261 — Cleanliness at 11 Taranaki Street, Kuripuni, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions