What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427388 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5427388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427388?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427388 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5427388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427388?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427388 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
An adjourning order on 5 May 2026 provided for the release of $2,200 of the bond to the tenants. It ordered, in part:
The balance of $200.00 was held pending timetabling for resolution of rubbish removal. The time has now lapsed with no follow up from the landlord regarding any failure of the tenant to arrange the removal, nor of any costs to do so itself.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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 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.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
The tenant application sought the return of the bond and compensation. The compensation was considered at the last hearing, and I gave a verbal decision at that time that there were no grounds for compensation for the time lost due to the dispute and subsequent applications.
The landlord had counterclaimed for compensation. It sought compensation for carpet cleaning ($379.50, cleaning ($448.50) and rubbish removal ($99.00). The rubbish removal cost is dismissed as per the timetabling in the 5 May 2026 has been satisfied with no tenant liability established.
This tenancy ended on 29 December 2025. That timing, during the seasonal holiday period, meant any vacated remedial activities took place later in January 2026. That delay of up to several weeks, with a closed-up house during the hotter part of the year, required some consideration.
The landlord was flexible with the tenants and provided opportunities for them to remedy some issues. The end date, set by the tenants, was logistically challenging due to external demands and constraints at that time of the year but that is essentially a problem for the landlord as the tenant exercised their right to terminate at their convenience.

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 claimed the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish (since resolved). A carpet cleaning and prior pest control was conducted.
The landlord provided an invoice detail as below:
The tenants disputed there was a need for such cleaning. Using the shared screen function of the video conference the exit photos were collectively reviewed. Where appropriate, comparison with the entry condition photos took place and submissions invited from both parties.
Having completed that comparative exercise, I share the view of the tenants that the tasks claimed were not evidentially supported by the photos. The premises appear reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is dismissed.
With regard to the carpet cleaning and related pest control. The intention was for the tenant to arrange a carpet stain removal. This did not occur. WOW carpet cleaning were engaged to attend on 8 January 2026 and a written summary provided on 10 February 2026 submitted. It stated (in part):
There was limited evidence in the photos provided of any pest issue, nor of it being raised during the tenancy. The landlord stated the fly infestation was a result of the dirty condition of the premises during the tenancy. The tenants refuted that. They accepted some cat biscuits were left behind on vacate but photos support their stance that the biscuits were behind a closed wardrobe door. That does not seem a likely source of an infestation.
I accept that there was a need for pest control, but there is insufficient evidence of any tenant failures that would have led to this need. I note the source remained unidentified. In determining this, I also consider the extended period of the house being unoccupied during the summer seasonal holiday. If the root cause was the way the tenants lived one might have expected to have seen evidence of fly dirt or such – during, or at the end of the tenancy. No sign was evident in any photo provided.
The carpet clean cost $379.50 but that was for a full house shampoo and clean. The tenant had arranged and paid for effective stain removal. Having considered the entry condition of the carpet as well as the exit photos as provided, I do not consider the landlord has been able to justify tenant liability for a commercial carpet clean as conducted. Given that, the claim must be dismissed.
Both compensation claims are dismissed as unproven tenant liability.
Given the rubbish removal is resolved, there are no landlord claim against the bond, as foreshadowed in the first hearing.
The remaining balance of $200.00 tenant bond is returned to them, Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their own cost of filing. There was justification in both applications. Suppression
The order of 5 May 2026 included an order for tenant name and details suppression. That suppression orders continues.

Order

The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
An adjourning order on 5 May 2026 provided for the release of $2,200 of the bond to the tenants. It ordered, in part:
The balance of $200.00 was held pending timetabling for resolution of rubbish removal. The time has now lapsed with no follow up from the landlord regarding any failure of the tenant to arrange the removal, nor of any costs to do so itself.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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 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.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
The tenant application sought the return of the bond and compensation. The compensation was considered at the last hearing, and I gave a verbal decision at that time that there were no grounds for compensation for the time lost due to the dispute and subsequent applications.
The landlord had counterclaimed for compensation. It sought compensation for carpet cleaning ($379.50, cleaning ($448.50) and rubbish removal ($99.00). The rubbish removal cost is dismissed as per the timetabling in the 5 May 2026 has been satisfied with no tenant liability established.
This tenancy ended on 29 December 2025. That timing, during the seasonal holiday period, meant any vacated remedial activities took place later in January 2026. That delay of up to several weeks, with a closed-up house during the hotter part of the year, required some consideration.
The landlord was flexible with the tenants and provided opportunities for them to remedy some issues. The end date, set by the tenants, was logistically challenging due to external demands and constraints at that time of the year but that is essentially a problem for the landlord as the tenant exercised their right to terminate at their convenience.

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 claimed the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish (since resolved). A carpet cleaning and prior pest control was conducted.
The landlord provided an invoice detail as below:
The tenants disputed there was a need for such cleaning. Using the shared screen function of the video conference the exit photos were collectively reviewed. Where appropriate, comparison with the entry condition photos took place and submissions invited from both parties.
Having completed that comparative exercise, I share the view of the tenants that the tasks claimed were not evidentially supported by the photos. The premises appear reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is dismissed.
With regard to the carpet cleaning and related pest control. The intention was for the tenant to arrange a carpet stain removal. This did not occur. WOW carpet cleaning were engaged to attend on 8 January 2026 and a written summary provided on 10 February 2026 submitted. It stated (in part):
There was limited evidence in the photos provided of any pest issue, nor of it being raised during the tenancy. The landlord stated the fly infestation was a result of the dirty condition of the premises during the tenancy. The tenants refuted that. They accepted some cat biscuits were left behind on vacate but photos support their stance that the biscuits were behind a closed wardrobe door. That does not seem a likely source of an infestation.
I accept that there was a need for pest control, but there is insufficient evidence of any tenant failures that would have led to this need. I note the source remained unidentified. In determining this, I also consider the extended period of the house being unoccupied during the summer seasonal holiday. If the root cause was the way the tenants lived one might have expected to have seen evidence of fly dirt or such – during, or at the end of the tenancy. No sign was evident in any photo provided.
The carpet clean cost $379.50 but that was for a full house shampoo and clean. The tenant had arranged and paid for effective stain removal. Having considered the entry condition of the carpet as well as the exit photos as provided, I do not consider the landlord has been able to justify tenant liability for a commercial carpet clean as conducted. Given that, the claim must be dismissed.
Both compensation claims are dismissed as unproven tenant liability.
Given the rubbish removal is resolved, there are no landlord claim against the bond, as foreshadowed in the first hearing.
The remaining balance of $200.00 tenant bond is returned to them, Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their own cost of filing. There was justification in both applications. Suppression
The order of 5 May 2026 included an order for tenant name and details suppression. That suppression orders continues.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427388 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427388 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions