Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5430130 — Cleanliness
Decided 2 Jun 2026 · Published 2 Jun 2026 · Application 5430130
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
N Bradley
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- No further orders are made in this application.
- The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing.
- The tenants did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The tenant was phoned on the phone number provided but the phone calls went to voice mail. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The application had been adjourned to allow the tenant to undertake the tasks set out in the work order, including cleaning the carpet and if it could not be cleaned and had to be replaced by the landlord, then to determine the tenant’s liability for carpet replacement costs.
- The landlord says the tenant has not complied with the work order and specifically has not cleaned the carpet. The landlord has also not replaced the carpet.
- After discussion at the hearing, it was agreed that no further orders being made in relation to this tenancy, however the landlord may file a fresh application for compensation for carpet replacement if required.
- The Tribunal previously ordered suppression for the tenant and that order continues to apply.