How much money was awarded in case 5422241?

Carpet Stain Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Rent: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Repaint Wall In Bathroom – Landlord…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Stain Removal From Lounge Suite: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5422241?

Carpet Stain Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Rent: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Repaint Wall In Bathroom – Landlord…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Stain Removal From Lounge Suite: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 121A Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422241 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422241 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422241 — net $140.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repaint wall in bathroom – landlord labour 2 hours	$60.00		Repaint wall in bathroom – landlord labour 2 hours
Cleaning - landlord labour 3 hours	$90.00		Cleaning - landlord labour 3 hours
Stain removal from lounge suite	$100.00		Stain removal from lounge suite
Carpet stain removal	$50.00		Carpet stain removal
Refund rent		$440.00	Refund rent
Total award	$300.00	$440.00
Net award		$140.00
Bond		$1,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$140.00

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

Margaret Helen Firth and Andy Firth must pay [The tenant/s] $140.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and stain removal, and the cleaning of and stain removal from the lounge suite. As well, the landlord seeks the cost of repainting a wall in the bathroom spotted with hair dye.

The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond and a refund of 1 week’s rent they over-paid. Rent refund

The tenancy ended on 21 September 2025. The landlord required the tenants to return more than once to do further cleaning. The landlord has therefore claimed additional rent (2 days) since they say the tenants had not vacated until after the cleaning was done.

I find that the tenancy ended at 11.59pm on 21 September 2025. The tenants left the key at the premises which the landlord retrieved the next day. The landlord took possession as they were entitled to.

The landlord cannot take possession and then require further rent to be paid because they considered that additional cleaning was needed. The landlord allowed the tenants access after the tenancy ended, but that does not come with an obligation for the tenants to pay further rent.

I have made an order for the landlord to refund the additional 1 week’s rent mistakenly paid by the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 1 . The tenants must also repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear 2 . 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA

The landlord considered that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, that the carpets required steam cleaning and stain removal, and that the lounge suite also required steam cleaning and stain removal.

The tenants cleaned the premises themselves and then, when the landlord said that was not sufficient, engaged a cleaning contractor.

The timelines each party referred to were confusing, but that is not determinative.

What I find emerges from the evidence (both oral and documentary including photos and a video) is that the tenants generally (after their and their contractor’s cleaning) left the premises reasonably clean. The landlord’s expectation went beyond the tenants’ statutory responsibility.

I accept that some additional cleaning was required by the landlord. I have allowed 3 hours and have reimbursed the landlord at the rate the Tribunal usually awards to a private landlord - $30.00 per hour.

The landlord produced an invoice prepared by their company to themselves as individuals.

The reality is that the landlord did the cleaning, and reimbursement should recognise that, not a commercial rate of reimbursement.

The landlord must also accept that premises will usually require some additional cleaning after one tenancy ends and before another starts. That is part and parcel of the business of a landlord.

The evidence does not establish that all the carpets had to be professionally steam cleaned. Generally, the carpets were left reasonably clean, though required more vacuuming.

The same applies to the lounge suite. The evidence does not establish that the whole suite had to be steam cleaned. While possibly desirable, it was not necessary.

I accept that there were some stains on the carpet and on the lounge suite. I have awarded some compensation for the stain removal (which was effective) but not for the entire cleaning.

The tenants spot stained a wall in the bathroom with hair dye. It was reasonable for the landlord to paint the affected wall as the bathroom was newly decorated at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $190.00 plus GST for repainting the wall. Applying the same principle (reimbursement for private landlord labour) I award the landlord $60.00 based on 2 hours work; the work required was minor. Result

The bond will be paid to the tenants.

The landlord’s successful claims ($300.00) will be off set against the over-paid rent. The landlord will therefore pay the tenants $140.00.

I have not reimbursed the filings fees the parties paid. Each has been successful. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as their application is successful 3 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422241 — net $140.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repaint wall in bathroom – landlord labour 2 hours	$60.00		Repaint wall in bathroom – landlord labour 2 hours
Cleaning - landlord labour 3 hours	$90.00		Cleaning - landlord labour 3 hours
Stain removal from lounge suite	$100.00		Stain removal from lounge suite
Carpet stain removal	$50.00		Carpet stain removal
Refund rent		$440.00	Refund rent
Total award	$300.00	$440.00
Net award		$140.00
Bond		$1,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$140.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Margaret Helen Firth and Andy Firth must pay [The tenant/s] $140.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and stain removal, and the cleaning of and stain removal from the lounge suite. As well, the landlord seeks the cost of repainting a wall in the bathroom spotted with hair dye.
The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond and a refund of 1 week’s rent they over-paid. Rent refund
The tenancy ended on 21 September 2025. The landlord required the tenants to return more than once to do further cleaning. The landlord has therefore claimed additional rent (2 days) since they say the tenants had not vacated until after the cleaning was done.
I find that the tenancy ended at 11.59pm on 21 September 2025. The tenants left the key at the premises which the landlord retrieved the next day. The landlord took possession as they were entitled to.
The landlord cannot take possession and then require further rent to be paid because they considered that additional cleaning was needed. The landlord allowed the tenants access after the tenancy ended, but that does not come with an obligation for the tenants to pay further rent.
I have made an order for the landlord to refund the additional 1 week’s rent mistakenly paid by the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 1 . The tenants must also repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear 2 . 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
The landlord considered that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, that the carpets required steam cleaning and stain removal, and that the lounge suite also required steam cleaning and stain removal.
The tenants cleaned the premises themselves and then, when the landlord said that was not sufficient, engaged a cleaning contractor.
The timelines each party referred to were confusing, but that is not determinative.
What I find emerges from the evidence (both oral and documentary including photos and a video) is that the tenants generally (after their and their contractor’s cleaning) left the premises reasonably clean. The landlord’s expectation went beyond the tenants’ statutory responsibility.
I accept that some additional cleaning was required by the landlord. I have allowed 3 hours and have reimbursed the landlord at the rate the Tribunal usually awards to a private landlord - $30.00 per hour.
The landlord produced an invoice prepared by their company to themselves as individuals.
The reality is that the landlord did the cleaning, and reimbursement should recognise that, not a commercial rate of reimbursement.
The landlord must also accept that premises will usually require some additional cleaning after one tenancy ends and before another starts. That is part and parcel of the business of a landlord.
The evidence does not establish that all the carpets had to be professionally steam cleaned. Generally, the carpets were left reasonably clean, though required more vacuuming.
The same applies to the lounge suite. The evidence does not establish that the whole suite had to be steam cleaned. While possibly desirable, it was not necessary.
I accept that there were some stains on the carpet and on the lounge suite. I have awarded some compensation for the stain removal (which was effective) but not for the entire cleaning.
The tenants spot stained a wall in the bathroom with hair dye. It was reasonable for the landlord to paint the affected wall as the bathroom was newly decorated at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $190.00 plus GST for repainting the wall. Applying the same principle (reimbursement for private landlord labour) I award the landlord $60.00 based on 2 hours work; the work required was minor. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants.
The landlord’s successful claims ($300.00) will be off set against the over-paid rent. The landlord will therefore pay the tenants $140.00.
I have not reimbursed the filings fees the parties paid. Each has been successful. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as their application is successful 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422241 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 121A Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422241 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 121A Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions