What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421760 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5421760?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421760?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593974-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421760 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5421760?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421760?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593974-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52 Seaview Road, Paremata, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421760 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421760 — net $1,510.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,910.00		Replace furnishings: carpet
Compensation: cleaning		$400.00	13. In the circumstances, I accept that the tenants were required to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy, and they are entitled to some compensation…
Total award	$1,910.00	$400.00
Net award	$1,510.00
Bond	$3,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,510.00

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Windy City Ventures Ltd $1,510.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 (3222440-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Windy City Ventures Ltd: $1,510.00 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,470.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Hollis, Ms Faimalo and Ms Lameko attending for the tenants. Ms Fawcett represented the landlord.
The tenancy began on 9 September 2024 and ended on 14 December 2025. The tenants note that they did not fully move into the premises until 20 September 2024.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond, compensation for cleaning and mould issues, and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord filed a late cross application seeking compensation for carpet replacement, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s cross application was only filed on 11 May 2026 and a copy of the application and supporting documents filed was not available for the hearing. However, the landlord was able to provide evidence at the hearing to enable the matter to be heard. The tenants were also aware of the landlord’s claim and agreed to the cross application being heard despite the late notice.
After the hearing finished I was able to review the application filed by the landlord including all the evidence filed in support including a pre-tenancy entry condition report.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 , and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2 Cleaning and curtain mould
The tenants provided photo evidence taken when they moved into the premises on 20 September 2024 which proves that the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The photos show that the oven trays and the fridge were dirty; there were scuffs and marks over the walls and doors throughout the premises and mould on the curtains. They also reported other issues such as unclean cupboards, dirty HRV filter and dead bugs on the blinds, although they did not have photos of those items. They also reported a strong damp smell in the front bedroom.
The tenants notified the landlord of the cleaning issues by email on 8 October 2024 and advised that they had spent time cleaning. They also advised the landlord of other minor maintenance issues. 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
The tenants removed the mouldy curtains and hung up their own curtains during the tenancy. When the tenancy ended they re-installed the old curtains as instructed by the landlord.
I note that the marks on the walls and mould on the curtains are recorded in the landlord’s own pre-tenancy condition report uploaded with their cross application. Ms Fawcett indicated that a copy of this report was not sent to the tenants when the tenancy started. She accepted at the hearing that there were cleaning issues at the start of the tenancy.
I note from the landlord’s cross application that the tenants returned to the premises to complete cleaning at the landlord’s request after the tenancy ended including scuff marks on walls. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, a tenant is not required to leave the premises any cleaner than they found them.
In the circumstances, I accept that the tenants were required to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy, and they are entitled to some compensation for doing so. They say the cleaning took 2-3 days. Based on the photos, I award $400 for cleaning, removal of curtains and hanging new curtains. This equates to two people working for 8 hours at a rate of $25/hour which I consider is fair and reasonable. Mould during tenancy
The tenants say that the bathroom ceiling developed mould throughout the tenancy which they were constantly having to wipe down. However, they did not produce any photos to show the extent of the mould. I note that the tenants raised the issue of water leaking from underneath the shower door which was addressed by the landlord installing a shower guard. The tenants later reported that the guard had broken, and it was not fixed by the landlord.
Overall, I consider that there is insufficient evidence of a defect at the premises causing mould. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for carpet damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 3 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4 In this case, the landlord’s insurance excess was $2750. However, the landlord disclosed an insurance excess on the tenancy agreement of $2,000. Therefore, that is the excess I must apply.
Where damage is proved and items require replacement, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet stains Landlord case
The landlord claims that the tenants are responsible for carpet stains in the open plan lounge/entrance hall area; bedroom 3 and in another small hallway. Professional cleaning did not remove the stains. The owner made an insurance claim. Carpet Court was instructed to assess the carpet and provide replacement quotes which were as follows: Bedroom 3—$2,262.76 Small hallway—$ 1161.41 Lounge/entrance—$9,314.42 Total replacement cost $12,738.59
The owner’s insurer has applied an excess to each area. The insurer has offered the landlord a cash settlement less the excess. The owners are yet to accept the offer and replace the carpet. If they do, accept the cash settlement, they may use it as they wish and they are not obliged to use Carpet Court to replace the carpets. They could shop around for another quote.
The maximum the landlord may claim for each of the above areas from the tenants is the lesser of the actual cost or the insurance excess of $2,000. Therefore, the maximum amount they may claim is $5,161.41.
The landlord does not know how old the carpets are but believes they were high quality wool carpets. The owners purchased the premises in 2024 before this tenancy started and believe the carpet may be 5-7 years old. However, Ms Fawcett says that Carpet Court assessed that the carpets were approximately 5 years old because the carpet is still “in stock”. The landlord also relies on an email from the insurer on 22 April 2026 in which they advised that indemnity value is paid for carpets older than 5 years and the insurer has agreed to pay 4 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA replacement value in this case because of the Carpet Court advice about the age of the carpets.
The landlord produced comparison photos taken at the start and at the end of the tenancy to prove that the stains occurred during the tenancy. Tenant case
The tenants say that the carpet was already in an aged and heavily stained condition at the start of the tenancy. There were many visible stains and the carpet was worn. They accept that two stains in the lounge and bedroom 3 were caused by them accidentally. They tried to clean the areas with a Rug Doctor, but this did not remove the staining and may have made the stains worse. They say that the entrance hall is a heavy traffic area, so marks are inevitable and part of fair wear and tear. The tenants did not take any photos of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. However, they are of the opinion that it would be unfair for them to cover carpet replacement costs when the carpets were already stained and worn. Discussion and findings
I accept that the comparison photos presented by the landlord show that new stains occurred during the tenancy and there are three stains in particular which stand out in bedroom 3, the lounge and the small hallway. There are also extra marks at the entrance. I am satisfied that the stains were caused during the tenancy and amount to careless damage.
However, the comparison photos do not show the full picture regarding the condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. I have reviewed the digital pre-tenancy inspection report uploaded by the landlord to their cross application. Looking at all the photos (and zooming in on the photos) of other areas of carpet in the same rooms, there are marks and stains throughout. Many of the marks have also been recorded in the written overview at the start of the report. The conclusion I have reached is that the comparison photos show a limited view and there is evidence of other pre-existing stains in the lounge, entrance, bedroom 3 and the hall in the pre-tenancy inspection report. This supports an argument that the carpet was due for replacement because of historic staining and fair wear and tear.
There is little evidence to prove the age of the carpet. While Carpet Court have provided an opinion to the insurer, their report was not made available to the Tribunal, and they could not be questioned about this evidence. The carpet could be 5-7 years old, or more.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate that bedroom carpet should last 10-14 years and living area carpets should last 8-12 years.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided adequate evidence to prove the age of the carpets. The pre-tenancy inspection photos also show that the carpets were discoloured, marked, and stained throughout the premises. Once carpet is stained or damaged, I consider it is likely to deteriorate at a faster rate.
I am also conscious that the landlord has not yet replaced the carpets.
After carefully considering all the evidence, including the pre-existing stains, the fact that the age of the carpet is unknown, and that the owners have not yet replaced the carpets, I consider that they must be treated as near the end of their life and fully depreciable. However, but for the damage caused by the tenants, the carpets may have been expected to last a few more years before replacement was necessary. Therefore, I consider it fair to award 15% of the replacement costs as compensation for the replacement of the carpet. The award totals $1,910.70.
Both parties have partially succeeded with their claims. Therefore, neither is awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord sought suppression. The tenants did not. However, because neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings, neither party is entitled to suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421760 — net $1,510.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,910.00		Replace furnishings: carpet
Compensation: cleaning		$400.00	13. In the circumstances, I accept that the tenants were required to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy, and they are entitled to some compensation…
Total award	$1,910.00	$400.00
Net award	$1,510.00
Bond	$3,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,510.00

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Windy City Ventures Ltd $1,510.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 (3222440-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Windy City Ventures Ltd: $1,510.00 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,470.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Hollis, Ms Faimalo and Ms Lameko attending for the tenants. Ms Fawcett represented the landlord.
The tenancy began on 9 September 2024 and ended on 14 December 2025. The tenants note that they did not fully move into the premises until 20 September 2024.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond, compensation for cleaning and mould issues, and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord filed a late cross application seeking compensation for carpet replacement, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s cross application was only filed on 11 May 2026 and a copy of the application and supporting documents filed was not available for the hearing. However, the landlord was able to provide evidence at the hearing to enable the matter to be heard. The tenants were also aware of the landlord’s claim and agreed to the cross application being heard despite the late notice.
After the hearing finished I was able to review the application filed by the landlord including all the evidence filed in support including a pre-tenancy entry condition report.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 , and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2 Cleaning and curtain mould
The tenants provided photo evidence taken when they moved into the premises on 20 September 2024 which proves that the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The photos show that the oven trays and the fridge were dirty; there were scuffs and marks over the walls and doors throughout the premises and mould on the curtains. They also reported other issues such as unclean cupboards, dirty HRV filter and dead bugs on the blinds, although they did not have photos of those items. They also reported a strong damp smell in the front bedroom.
The tenants notified the landlord of the cleaning issues by email on 8 October 2024 and advised that they had spent time cleaning. They also advised the landlord of other minor maintenance issues. 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
The tenants removed the mouldy curtains and hung up their own curtains during the tenancy. When the tenancy ended they re-installed the old curtains as instructed by the landlord.
I note that the marks on the walls and mould on the curtains are recorded in the landlord’s own pre-tenancy condition report uploaded with their cross application. Ms Fawcett indicated that a copy of this report was not sent to the tenants when the tenancy started. She accepted at the hearing that there were cleaning issues at the start of the tenancy.
I note from the landlord’s cross application that the tenants returned to the premises to complete cleaning at the landlord’s request after the tenancy ended including scuff marks on walls. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, a tenant is not required to leave the premises any cleaner than they found them.
In the circumstances, I accept that the tenants were required to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy, and they are entitled to some compensation for doing so. They say the cleaning took 2-3 days. Based on the photos, I award $400 for cleaning, removal of curtains and hanging new curtains. This equates to two people working for 8 hours at a rate of $25/hour which I consider is fair and reasonable. Mould during tenancy
The tenants say that the bathroom ceiling developed mould throughout the tenancy which they were constantly having to wipe down. However, they did not produce any photos to show the extent of the mould. I note that the tenants raised the issue of water leaking from underneath the shower door which was addressed by the landlord installing a shower guard. The tenants later reported that the guard had broken, and it was not fixed by the landlord.
Overall, I consider that there is insufficient evidence of a defect at the premises causing mould. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for carpet damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 3 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4 In this case, the landlord’s insurance excess was $2750. However, the landlord disclosed an insurance excess on the tenancy agreement of $2,000. Therefore, that is the excess I must apply.
Where damage is proved and items require replacement, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet stains Landlord case
The landlord claims that the tenants are responsible for carpet stains in the open plan lounge/entrance hall area; bedroom 3 and in another small hallway. Professional cleaning did not remove the stains. The owner made an insurance claim. Carpet Court was instructed to assess the carpet and provide replacement quotes which were as follows: Bedroom 3—$2,262.76 Small hallway—$ 1161.41 Lounge/entrance—$9,314.42 Total replacement cost $12,738.59
The owner’s insurer has applied an excess to each area. The insurer has offered the landlord a cash settlement less the excess. The owners are yet to accept the offer and replace the carpet. If they do, accept the cash settlement, they may use it as they wish and they are not obliged to use Carpet Court to replace the carpets. They could shop around for another quote.
The maximum the landlord may claim for each of the above areas from the tenants is the lesser of the actual cost or the insurance excess of $2,000. Therefore, the maximum amount they may claim is $5,161.41.
The landlord does not know how old the carpets are but believes they were high quality wool carpets. The owners purchased the premises in 2024 before this tenancy started and believe the carpet may be 5-7 years old. However, Ms Fawcett says that Carpet Court assessed that the carpets were approximately 5 years old because the carpet is still “in stock”. The landlord also relies on an email from the insurer on 22 April 2026 in which they advised that indemnity value is paid for carpets older than 5 years and the insurer has agreed to pay 4 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA replacement value in this case because of the Carpet Court advice about the age of the carpets.
The landlord produced comparison photos taken at the start and at the end of the tenancy to prove that the stains occurred during the tenancy. Tenant case
The tenants say that the carpet was already in an aged and heavily stained condition at the start of the tenancy. There were many visible stains and the carpet was worn. They accept that two stains in the lounge and bedroom 3 were caused by them accidentally. They tried to clean the areas with a Rug Doctor, but this did not remove the staining and may have made the stains worse. They say that the entrance hall is a heavy traffic area, so marks are inevitable and part of fair wear and tear. The tenants did not take any photos of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. However, they are of the opinion that it would be unfair for them to cover carpet replacement costs when the carpets were already stained and worn. Discussion and findings
I accept that the comparison photos presented by the landlord show that new stains occurred during the tenancy and there are three stains in particular which stand out in bedroom 3, the lounge and the small hallway. There are also extra marks at the entrance. I am satisfied that the stains were caused during the tenancy and amount to careless damage.
However, the comparison photos do not show the full picture regarding the condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. I have reviewed the digital pre-tenancy inspection report uploaded by the landlord to their cross application. Looking at all the photos (and zooming in on the photos) of other areas of carpet in the same rooms, there are marks and stains throughout. Many of the marks have also been recorded in the written overview at the start of the report. The conclusion I have reached is that the comparison photos show a limited view and there is evidence of other pre-existing stains in the lounge, entrance, bedroom 3 and the hall in the pre-tenancy inspection report. This supports an argument that the carpet was due for replacement because of historic staining and fair wear and tear.
There is little evidence to prove the age of the carpet. While Carpet Court have provided an opinion to the insurer, their report was not made available to the Tribunal, and they could not be questioned about this evidence. The carpet could be 5-7 years old, or more.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate that bedroom carpet should last 10-14 years and living area carpets should last 8-12 years.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided adequate evidence to prove the age of the carpets. The pre-tenancy inspection photos also show that the carpets were discoloured, marked, and stained throughout the premises. Once carpet is stained or damaged, I consider it is likely to deteriorate at a faster rate.
I am also conscious that the landlord has not yet replaced the carpets.
After carefully considering all the evidence, including the pre-existing stains, the fact that the age of the carpet is unknown, and that the owners have not yet replaced the carpets, I consider that they must be treated as near the end of their life and fully depreciable. However, but for the damage caused by the tenants, the carpets may have been expected to last a few more years before replacement was necessary. Therefore, I consider it fair to award 15% of the replacement costs as compensation for the replacement of the carpet. The award totals $1,910.70.
Both parties have partially succeeded with their claims. Therefore, neither is awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord sought suppression. The tenants did not. However, because neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings, neither party is entitled to suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421760 — Cleanliness at 52 Seaview Road, Paremata, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421760 — Cleanliness at 52 Seaview Road, Paremata, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition?

Is the tenant responsible for carpet damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition?

Is the tenant responsible for carpet damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions