What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425269 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5425269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14043533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425269 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5425269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14043533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Rangitake Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425269 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Mr Stein, the landlord, and Ms Margaret Walsh, representing all the executors of the Estate of Christine Walsh, attended the video conference hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. At the start of the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for exemplary damages.

The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 30 November 2025, after the executors gave 21 days’ notice to the landlord to end the tenancy on this date. Burden of proof and evidence

The party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[The tenant/s] applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

When the parties dispute an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord did not provide any Entry Inspection Report or Final Inspection Report. Nor did the landlord provide any photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, apart from two photographs, one of a damaged door frame and one of a door handle area, the repair cost of which he said during the hearing that he did not pursue in any event. The landlord provided an Inspection Report dated 19 May 2022, 2 years into the tenancy, when the property had been managed by a property management firm. The tenant provided an inspection report dated 5 February 2025, also during the tenancy, from the same property management company, along with other evidence. The landlord provided invoices for the amounts of his claims, as indicated below. Cleaning

The landlord said that when he went into the property after it was vacated, it was very messy, that he arranged for a cleaner and asked that the carpets also be cleaned, as he said there was a strong pet urine smell in the property. The landlord said the cleaner cleaned the whole unit and cleaned the carpet 3 times, but the pet urine smell remained. As such, the landlord said he replaced the carpets, which is dealt with below.

Ms Walsh said the tenant’s children had cleaned the property before the last day of the tenancy and that they told her they had fully cleaned it. She mentioned that the landlord had been present at the property around the time the tenant’s children were cleaning it and had apparently told them they were doing a good job.

Ms Walsh acknowledged contacting a cleaner for a quote well before the end of the tenancy, as the landlord had brought this up, and said this was because her sister, the tenant, expressed a wish to come home to die, and she wanted to ensure the property was safe for her sister’s health. Ms Walsh said she did not proceed with engaging a cleaner in the end as her sister ended up in hospice care, as Ms Walsh believed the house was likely too draughty for her sister.

Ms Walsh pointed out the landlord had not provided any inspection reports for the start or end of the tenancy, which she had requested from him, nor any photographs related to the cleaning claim. She said the landlord did not mention any cleaning issue to her either right after the keys were handed back.

The landlord said the main issue for him had been the extreme pet urine smell, which he had wanted removed by cleaning the carpets. He said when this smell was not removed after 3 carpet cleanings, his new agent told him the property was unrentable and so he had to replace the carpets.

Ms Walsh said she had attended the property herself a few times and had never smelled pet urine. She said she had had the carpets professionally cleaned also in October 2025 so believed there was no such requirement for any further carpet cleaning only about a month later when the tenancy ended.

I note the comments of the property manager in both routine Inspection Reports provided for during the tenancy, both in 2022 and in 2025, that said, “house is very clean and tidy”. The tenant’s estate’s executor also provided an email from the previous property manager confirming he believed the tenant made a huge improvement to the house, including painting the exterior and in the garden out the back.

Whilst the landlord provided a handwritten receipt for $800.00 for cleaning, and said he had paid the cleaner this amount, the landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence of the requirement for him to incur this cost at the end of the tenancy, such as a Final Inspection Report or any photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, that might show a need for professional cleaning. Given this lack of additional supporting evidence, the landlord has not proved the tenant likely did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. As such, this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Replace carpets a. The landlord said the carpets throughout the property had to be replaced at a cost of $3,976.60. The landlord provided an invoice from a carpet company in this amount. b. The landlord said, as indicated above in the cleaning claim, that when the 3 carpet cleanings did not manage to remove the pet urine smell in the carpets, he was told by his new agent that the property was unrentable and so he had to replace the carpets. He said it took a couple of months to go through the process of cleaning the carpets, then getting the agent over for an opinion, getting a quote and then getting the carpets replaced. c. The tenant’s estate executor questioned why they had not received any photographs from the landlord about the carpets’ condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said it was not possible to convey such a smell through photographs in any event. The landlord said the carpet had been new in the property around 2020 at the start of the tenancy. The landlord confirmed he had had insurance at the start of the tenancy but then cancelled it due to his finances and said that there was no insurance for the last 2 years of the tenancy. The landlord said he had not made an insurance claim for replacements of the carpets. d. The tenant pointed out that both routine inspection reports during the tenancy, one dated 19 May 2022 and the other dated 5 February 2025, 3 years apart indicated the carpets were new, that they never changed the comments in any of these inspection reports from the carpets being new. The tenant disputed the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and said that the tenant had had to use rugs over the carpet as it was not in such great condition. There was no Entry Inspection Report or photographs provided by the landlord to resolve this dispute, however. The executor had indicated she had never smelled pet urine when visiting the property, as indicated in the cleaning claim above. e. Whilst I agree with the landlord that it is difficult to convey a smell through photographs, the landlord could have obtained other additional supporting evidence of the pet urine issue with the carpets, such as statements from the carpet professionals who removed the old carpets or other similar professional about the pet urine smell, or professional photographs from a carpet professional that could have indicated the likelihood of urine stains in the carpet. There is nothing indicated in the carpet invoice or quote provided by the landlord about any smell in the carpet. This is a claim for a significant amount. As such, given this lack of additional supporting evidence from the landlord to show the carpet was likely heavily soiled and required replacing, I dismiss this claim. Replace window glass f. The landlord claimed $378.69 to replace two windows at the property that he said were badly cracked – one window in the living room and another window in the bedroom. The landlord provided an invoice in this amount to replace the glass only in two windows. The landlord did not, however, provide any photographs or inspection reports about the condition of these windows at the end of the tenancy, to show they were cracked or the degree to which they were cracked. g. The tenant said she had been at the property and not noticed any cracked windows. She indicated that, during the tenancy, she had replaced some bathroom windows at the property that had been cracked, and that, had they noticed any other cracked windows, they likely would have replaced the glass. However, the tenant said the property was very old and that any cracks indicated by the landlord could likely have been fair wear and tear anyway, as the landlord did not say the windows were broken, which would be different. The landlord disputed this, indicating the windows were badly cracked and were not cracked when the tenant moved in. h. I note that in both of the routine inspection reports provided, that were for periods during the tenancy, including the one from 5 February 2025, the property manager has listed “no cracks in glass” for the windows in both bedrooms and in the living room, for both inspection reports. i. As the landlord has not provided any Entry Inspection Report or Final Inspection Report, nor any photographs of the windows he claims needed repairs, I find the landlord has not provided sufficient additional supporting evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. j. I note here the landlord’s comments throughout the hearing in relation to his claims that he had paid the invoices he provided and that was the basis of his claims. He said he would not have arranged for these repairs if they had not been required. However, parties are required to provide an objective evidentiary basis to show the requirement for them to incur any claimed costs, which includes inspection reports or photographs of the condition of the windows, or the condition of the property, for example, at the start and end of the tenancy, or other additional supporting evidence, in order to prove their claims. The landlord did not provide this evidence for his claims. This evidence, when provided, also allows the Tribunal to assess the reasonableness of any costs claimed. Refund of the bond

The landlord has applied for refund of the bond but has not proven any claims against the bond. The tenant’s estate’s executor asked for the refund of the bond to the tenant’s estate. The landlord indicated during the hearing that the parties had initially reached agreement about an apportionment of the bond, but when he later attended the property and saw the property’s condition, he changed his mind and claimed for the full bond in his application. As the landlord changed his mind about the parties’ earlier agreement that preceded the landlord’s application, and the landlord then sought the full bond be paid to him, in the same way, the tenant’s estate’s executor then sought the return of the full bond to the estate, as part of their submissions. Thus, the parties’ earlier agreement was at an end.

Bonds paid by tenants, which are then lodged with the Bond Centre, are held as a surety against any claims the landlord might make against a tenant at the end of the tenancy. As the landlord has not proved any of his claims against the bond here, then the bond is to revert to the tenant. Therefore, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant’s estate.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,420.00 (BN-16623187) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], immediately.

Reasons

Mr Stein, the landlord, and Ms Margaret Walsh, representing all the executors of the Estate of Christine Walsh, attended the video conference hearing.

The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 30 November 2025, after the executors gave 21 days’ notice to the landlord to end the tenancy on this date. Burden of proof and evidence

The party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.

When the parties dispute an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

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

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,420.00 (BN-16623187) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425269 — Cleanliness at 46 Rangitake Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425269 — Cleanliness at 46 Rangitake Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.