What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428886 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 5428886?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428886?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428886 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 5428886?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428886?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13801328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428886 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428886 — net $1,923.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$517.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$345.00	Pest control
Repairs: Wall damage	$400.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,923.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,923.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the toilet roll holder is not proven and therefore dismissed.
Renee Ann Mauri and NGATI TAUTAHI APIATA must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenants were called twice on the phone number in the application. The first call was answered but then the person hung up. The second call went straight to answerphone. The tenants did not attend by video or call into the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants were given notice of today’s hearing and therefore have proceeded in their absence. Background
The tenancy ended by termination order on the 17 December 2025. At that stage the tenants were in considerable rent arrears. The bond was applied towards the rent owing. The landlord has lodged the remaining debt with debt collectors.
At the beginning of the tenancy the 2-bedroom 1.5 bathroom house was brand new.
The landlord provided an inspection report showing the condition of the property on the 10 January 2026 (The landlord tells me that he allowed the tenant s extra time to remove their belongings and clean up the property). The photographs show that the tenants have mainly cleared out the house but have left a lot of belongings including two large sofas on the patio outside.
The landlord has applied for: a. Removal of rubbish $517.50 b. Lawnmowing $115.00 c. Carpet cleaning, removal stains from vinyl and carpet repair $517.50 d. Pest Control $345.00 e. Repair and painting of walls $690.00 f. Repair of toilet roll holder $92.00 g. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord had its maintenance person Tommy Housing Service carry out all of the repairs, cleaning, pest control and rubbish removal. The invoice provided to the Tribunal is dated the 31 December 2025, this was before the inspection date of the 10 January, but the landlord clarified that Tommy first gave a quote of that date which was given to the tenants to show them what it would cost if they did not comply with their obligations. The landlord confirms that Tommy carried out this work soon after the 10 January.
I also queried the landlord as Tommy Home Services Limited is registered in the Companies Office as a roof cleaning business not a home maintenance company. The landlord told me that Tommy’s does all their maintenance work. Cleaning, rubbish removal lawns and pest control
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.
I am satisfied from the vacated inspection report that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I also note that the lawns were extremely overgrown and needed to be cut and the garden edges needed weeding.
The landlord says that the tenant had kept an unauthorised dog in the property. The landlord says he knew this as on one occasion near to the end of the tenancy he was talking to the tenants in the downstairs of the house and could hear a dog barking in the house, he thought from an upstairs bedroom. He asked the tenants to look at the bedroom he thought the noise was coming from but they would not let him.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the carpet was laden with fleas and the house smelt of dog urine. The landlord identified several patches in the carpet which had discoloured and where the smell was bad, this included areas at the top of the stairs and in bedroom 2.
I am satisfied that the carpet needed cleaning as the carpet was soiled and stained in this 4 month tenancy.
The landlord says that the property needed 3 flea treatments to finally get rid of the fleas.
The amounts ordered are proved. Repair work
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.
The landlord showed me a number of areas that the landlord says that the tenant scuffed, scratched or gouged the walls. I accept that most of this damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant is liable. However, there were some areas which I do consider are fair wear and tear and therefore I have reduced the amount awarded slightly.
I am also satisfied that the tenant damaged the vinyl, by spilling ink on it, and has damaged a small piece of carpet in bedroom 1, likely from a dog scratching under the door.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Toilet roll holder.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the toilet roll holder in the toilet- the photographs show that it has clearly come away from the wall. This appears to be from use of the toilet roll, not from careless or intentional damage. It is just as likely that the toilet roll was not properly affixed to the wall – it appears as if it was just screwed into the gib) properly at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for damage to the toilet roll holder is not proven. Filing fee and name suppression.
The landlord has been successful in their claim, and I grant them the filing fee and name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428886 — net $1,923.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$517.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$517.50	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$345.00	Pest control
Repairs: Wall damage	$400.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,923.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,923.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the toilet roll holder is not proven and therefore dismissed.
Renee Ann Mauri and NGATI TAUTAHI APIATA must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenants were called twice on the phone number in the application. The first call was answered but then the person hung up. The second call went straight to answerphone. The tenants did not attend by video or call into the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants were given notice of today’s hearing and therefore have proceeded in their absence. Background
The tenancy ended by termination order on the 17 December 2025. At that stage the tenants were in considerable rent arrears. The bond was applied towards the rent owing. The landlord has lodged the remaining debt with debt collectors.
At the beginning of the tenancy the 2-bedroom 1.5 bathroom house was brand new.
The landlord provided an inspection report showing the condition of the property on the 10 January 2026 (The landlord tells me that he allowed the tenant s extra time to remove their belongings and clean up the property). The photographs show that the tenants have mainly cleared out the house but have left a lot of belongings including two large sofas on the patio outside.
The landlord has applied for: a. Removal of rubbish $517.50 b. Lawnmowing $115.00 c. Carpet cleaning, removal stains from vinyl and carpet repair $517.50 d. Pest Control $345.00 e. Repair and painting of walls $690.00 f. Repair of toilet roll holder $92.00 g. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord had its maintenance person Tommy Housing Service carry out all of the repairs, cleaning, pest control and rubbish removal. The invoice provided to the Tribunal is dated the 31 December 2025, this was before the inspection date of the 10 January, but the landlord clarified that Tommy first gave a quote of that date which was given to the tenants to show them what it would cost if they did not comply with their obligations. The landlord confirms that Tommy carried out this work soon after the 10 January.
I also queried the landlord as Tommy Home Services Limited is registered in the Companies Office as a roof cleaning business not a home maintenance company. The landlord told me that Tommy’s does all their maintenance work. Cleaning, rubbish removal lawns and pest control
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.
I am satisfied from the vacated inspection report that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I also note that the lawns were extremely overgrown and needed to be cut and the garden edges needed weeding.
The landlord says that the tenant had kept an unauthorised dog in the property. The landlord says he knew this as on one occasion near to the end of the tenancy he was talking to the tenants in the downstairs of the house and could hear a dog barking in the house, he thought from an upstairs bedroom. He asked the tenants to look at the bedroom he thought the noise was coming from but they would not let him.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the carpet was laden with fleas and the house smelt of dog urine. The landlord identified several patches in the carpet which had discoloured and where the smell was bad, this included areas at the top of the stairs and in bedroom 2.
I am satisfied that the carpet needed cleaning as the carpet was soiled and stained in this 4 month tenancy.
The landlord says that the property needed 3 flea treatments to finally get rid of the fleas.
The amounts ordered are proved. Repair work
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.
The landlord showed me a number of areas that the landlord says that the tenant scuffed, scratched or gouged the walls. I accept that most of this damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant is liable. However, there were some areas which I do consider are fair wear and tear and therefore I have reduced the amount awarded slightly.
I am also satisfied that the tenant damaged the vinyl, by spilling ink on it, and has damaged a small piece of carpet in bedroom 1, likely from a dog scratching under the door.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Toilet roll holder.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the toilet roll holder in the toilet- the photographs show that it has clearly come away from the wall. This appears to be from use of the toilet roll, not from careless or intentional damage. It is just as likely that the toilet roll was not properly affixed to the wall – it appears as if it was just screwed into the gib) properly at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for damage to the toilet roll holder is not proven. Filing fee and name suppression.
The landlord has been successful in their claim, and I grant them the filing fee and name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428886 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428886 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions