What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438911 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 5438911?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438911?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438911 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 5438911?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438911?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 323 Lincoln Road, Addington, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438911 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is not proven and therefore dismissed.
The tenants bond is to be released to the tenant in full.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by video today.

What is this claim about?

This claim is about whether the tenants are liable for the cost of stain removal and carpet cleaning of the lounge carpet following the end of an almost three year tenancy.
The landlord is claiming $449.94 for the stain removal and carpet cleaning for the lounge area. The work was completed on the 3 February 2026, after the new tenants moved in on the 22 February. The invoice records that the work order said “Urgent work order. Carpet clean with stain remover required following bond inspection.” And the narration in the invoice is: “Specialist treatment multiphase treatment process to stain in lounge carpet, blend clean rest of room.”
The tenants dispute liability for this stain and the costs of repair.
The tenancy premises were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The carpeted downstairs lounge area is approximately 18m2.
At the end of tenancy, the tenants were moving to the North Island. They arranged for the property to be commercially cleaned, including carpet cleaning. They have provided an invoice that shows that this occurred on the 18 January 2026.
The landlord conducted the vacate inspection on the 19 January 2026. The property manager wrote to the tenants saying that whilst in general the property was left reasonably clean and tidy, there were three areas that required further attention, these were a mark on one wall, the shower drain needed cleaning and there were two stains in the lounge carpet, a 10 cm in diameter rusty brown stain near the area where the lounge flows into the kitchen, and other small black stains near the ranch slider.
The tenants, whilst not agreeing that they were responsible for the extra cleaning and describing it in today’s hearing as ‘zealous’, nevertheless, went back to the property on the 20 January and cleaned the wall, shower drain and used stain treatment on the carpet. They have produced photographs showing how those areas looked after the cleaning on the 20 January was done. Whilst the stain is still there it is barely noticeable in some photographs which were taken at different angles.
The landlord says that they were happy with the other cleaning, but that brown stain in the lounge area persisted and they wanted to remove the brown stain. The property manager says that the owner insisted on attempting to have the stain removed.
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 questions that I must determine are: a. Are the tenants responsible for the damage? b. If, what compensation should be awarded?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Both parties say that the stain was not noticed during the tenancy. The property was regularly inspected every 3 months, but it is accepted that the area of the stain was close to or under furniture in the lounge. The tenants say that they have no idea when or how the stain was caused.
The tenants say that the lounge area is small and adjoins the kitchen. There is no dining area. The tenants say that the stains in the lounge carpet are ordinary everyday stains caused by people living in the property. The tenants say that the landlord cannot expect that after three years that the carpet would be in pristine or as new condition.
The tenant says that the IRD depreciation lifespan on carpets in the lounge for residential tenancies is 8 years. This means that using the depreciation calculators the carpet is now only worth between 54-58% of its original value.
The tenant submits that fair wear and tear should take into account the likely value of the carpet which he has calculated to be approximately $ 500- 700 using quotes of similar carpets and the depreciation schedule.
Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use.
In the District Court decision of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC NorthShore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27, His Honour Judge Thorburn addressed the issue of fair wear and tear, and who has the burden of proving what or how the damage was caused. Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition. Fair wear and tear has for decades been addressed. In Taylor v Webb (1937) 2 KB (CA) 283 Scott LJ at page 302 described it in relation to a landlord/tenant relationship as: " ... That brought about by the tenant, and other persons present in or on the premises with the consent of the tenant, either unintentionally or as a normal incident of a tenant's occupation in the course of the 'fair' (or 'reasonable') use of the premises for any of the purposes for which they were let." At page 303 he said further: " ... , the tenant's user and its effect, is too plain to need argument, and is well recognised in the decided cases." The appellant in this case has significantly fallen into a misconception that a landlord's claim can easily succeed by simply proving the existence of damage during the tenancy and having the tenant therefore burdened with all of the responsibility to make the running in terms of evidence. While s 40 achieves that if carelessness or intentional damage are to be excluded as the cause, if a tenant cannot specifically explain the damage that failure does not necessarily equivocate to carelessness or intentional damage
Carpets that become stained due to people or pets walking on them, bringing in dirt from outside that is not removed by cleaning may be considered fair wear and tear. That is because walking on carpet is using the carpet in a normal fashion 1 . The same might be said of carpet in the dining area that is stained as a result of food being accidentally dropped on the floor while a family sits at the table to eat. Again, this is if it cannot be removed by cleaning. (That is because the tenant has an obligation to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and that would include at least attempting to remove food and stains from soiled carpet). The tenant argues that this stain is of unknown origin but that its placement and colour suggest it is from something be brought in on footwear, feet or that has been accidentally spilt.
The landlord produced an inspection report from when the tenants had first moved into the property, it shows the area where the stain is located. However, there is a cushion on the floor in the spot around the stain is. I note that if you look at the placement of the stain in the photographs taken by the tenant and the landlord, it appears almost in line with the power point. If that is the case then it is more than likely in an area that would have been the main entry point to the lounge, or is just under the table that the tenants had in the lounge.
There is nowhere else in this property that the tenants could eat their food whilst sitting down. The only place for a table is the lounge. Even if the tenants used the island sink bench as a table, then they would have been over the carpet.
It is clear from the ingoing inspection reports that the landlords knew that the tenants had a table in that area, and a coffee table nearby. The landlords therefore knew that the tenants would be eating their meals and drinking their drinks in the lounge area.
The tenants satisfied their obligation to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, by cleaning the carpets when they left, and they also went back and tried to lift the stain. There was no requirement to have the lounge carpet cleaned and the tenants would not be responsible for the portion of the invoice that relates to cleaning. 1 Although it may be argued that a reasonable tenant would take steps to limit any damage by removing shoes.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the stain is more than fair wear and tear for the following reasons: a. I consider that it was reasonable for the tenants to eat and drink in the lounge, there being no other place that they could do so. b. Given the small nature of the living area and the likely foot traffic and meals that would be eaten over a period of 3 years it is to be expected that there would be some staining on the lounge carpet. c. There was no evidence of the tenants being careless or intentionally causing any damage to the premises, the landlord told me that they passed all inspections, and the tenants engaged commercial cleaners at the end of the tenancy at their own cost, and went back to the premises, when the landlord had complaints to try to rectify them. These are not the actions of tenants who do not care about the condition of the property, they demonstrate that the tenants took good care of the property and sought to hand the property back in a very good condition. d. A landlord may wish, at their own cost to restore the carpet and engage commercial cleaners to try to remove the stain, thereby maximising the lifespan of the carpet, but that does not mean that the tenant must automatically then pay for that cost.
As I am not satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear, then the landlord’s claim for stain removal is not proven and therefore dismissed.
Even though I have determined the stain on the carpet was fair wear and tear and the tenant is not liable for the damage, I also address the tenants’ other submission that the amount charged was not reasonable particularly in light of the depreciated value of the carpet and that the landlord has suffered no loss of rent.
The landlord had new tenants ready to come into the property, that tenancy began on the 22 January 2026. I find it unusual that the invoice records that the carpet was cleaned to blend it in. I say this because I would have thought that the new tenant’s furniture would have been in place, and I wonder why the landlord thought this would be necessary (it is recorded on the work order as carpets to be cleaned) when the carpet had already been commercially cleaned.
I am also troubled by the tenants’ submission that company chosen to do the work is half owned by one of the of the owners of the Property Management firm, and when asked to address that at today’s hearing the property manager confirmed that “we use P&G for all our maintenance and landscape jobs”. The property manager confirmed that they did not get any other quotes for this work.
The tribunal sees carpet cleaning and stain removal costs regularly. The amount charged of $391.25 plus GST of $58.69 is very high compared to other claims that are made for removal of stains. Granted that the removal of stains is usually undertaken as part of overall carpet cleaning.
The tenant submitted evidence taken from online searches which show that stain treatments are additional to carpet cleaning, but that stain treatments start from $20 and are usually 10% of the cost of carpet cleaning.
The online quotes provided by the tenant also show that one area carpet including stain removal would usually be around $250.00.
The tenant also provided an online quote for flooring which was for 21m2 which showed a price of $1531.95 for new carpet (the carpet was only 18m2). In light of this, the cost of removing the stain seems extraordinarily high, especially when the landlord had already secured new tenants who were paying the same amount of rent as these tenants and therefore there was no diminution in value of the rent that the landlord was to receive. Conclusion.
The landlord has not proven its case and therefore the claim is dismissed.
The Bond Centre may release the bond to the tenants in full.
The tenants are the successful party, they are entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438911 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 323 Lincoln Road, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438911 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 323 Lincoln Road, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is this claim about?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What is this claim about?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions