What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442308 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,400.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5442308?

1. Matthew Barratt To Pay Christophe…: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442308?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14207815-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442308 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,400.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5442308?

1. Matthew Barratt To Pay Christophe…: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442308?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14207815-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Sirrah Street, Okitu, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442308 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Matthew Barratt to pay Christopher James Read Meban	$2,400.00		1. Matthew Barratt to pay Christopher James Read Meban

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant didn’t attend and couldn’t be reached by phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond. It is a rehearing of his application. The application was previously dismissed after the landlord didn’t attend the scheduled hearing on 17 June 2026. A rehearing was granted in an Order dated 19 June.

The tenant was served via the e-mail address given as an address for service in the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy ended on 28 February 2023. This application was filed on 11 February 2026.

Because the application as filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy, special service requirements apply. 1

Up until 2 years after the end of the tenancy, a tenant can be served at the e- mail service address given in the agreement. After that an e-mail address used within 2 years before the date of the application is required. 2

The landlord ahs been unable to supply such an address.

I have nevertheless decided to dispense with further service and proceed with the hearing 3 for 2 reasons: First, the independent evidence supplied by the landlord in support of his claim is compelling, which limits the prejudice to the tenant from determining the claim without hearing from him; and Second, the landlord does not claim for the whole of the proved loss but only for the amount of the bond held, which the tenant could have asked to have released to him at any time in the last 3 ½ years.

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

Aft the tenant vacated on 28 February 2023, the landlord was troubled by a strong smell of cat urine though the premises. He had Spick Carpet Cleaning inspect.

Their report, accompanied by photos is dated 9 March 2023. The general observations were: “9 March 2023 General findings: Malodour was detected as soon as entering through the front door. Odour is particularly strong in the upstairs Master Bedroom walk-in wardrobe area. Urine contamination was visible on the back of the single leather chair in the lounge. Urine malodour gets stronger as soon as you walk down the stairs to the lower level. Malodour is present in every room. Nothing was noted on the drapes at initial attendance. Checks were made to all lower walls using UV light. Contamination is not overly noticeable despite the strong smell. Will need a night-time service visit to use UV light under better conditions to see contamination as too much light is present – large windows with no block- out blinds or drapes.” 1 S.91A(2) RTA 2 S.91A(2)(e) and (f) RTA 3 S.91B(2)(c) RTA

Recommended actions were: “Lodge insurance claim with Broker Emerre & Hathaway Clean affected lower walls (in addition to initial treatment done at the initial visit) Use Ozone generators and Hydroxyl generators to deal with airborne odours Treat and clean carpet throughout the home Have a painter apply BIN sealer to lock in any remaining odours and repaint”

The landlord made an insurance claim but because a separate $750.00 excess would have been required in respect of the urine contamination in each of the rooms in the house, it was not worthwhile to pursue.

The landlord had Spick clean the premises. Its invoice shows that a comprehensive treatment, as recommended, was required, at a cost to the landlord of $4,365.13.

I find it proved on balance that the cost of the work undertaken by Spick is a loss caused to the landlord by a beach of the tenant’s obligation to return the premises in reasonably clean condition.

The landlord is entitled to have the bond paid to him to offset that loss.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Matthew Barratt to pay Christopher James Read Meban	$2,400.00		1. Matthew Barratt to pay Christopher James Read Meban

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,400.00 from the bond, for cleaning charges.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5781619-003) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant didn’t attend and couldn’t be reached by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond. It is a rehearing of his application. The application was previously dismissed after the landlord didn’t attend the scheduled hearing on 17 June 2026. A rehearing was granted in an Order dated 19 June.
The tenant was served via the e-mail address given as an address for service in the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended on 28 February 2023. This application was filed on 11 February 2026.
Because the application as filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy, special service requirements apply. 1
Up until 2 years after the end of the tenancy, a tenant can be served at the e- mail service address given in the agreement. After that an e-mail address used within 2 years before the date of the application is required. 2
The landlord ahs been unable to supply such an address.
I have nevertheless decided to dispense with further service and proceed with the hearing 3 for 2 reasons: First, the independent evidence supplied by the landlord in support of his claim is compelling, which limits the prejudice to the tenant from determining the claim without hearing from him; and Second, the landlord does not claim for the whole of the proved loss but only for the amount of the bond held, which the tenant could have asked to have released to him at any time in the last 3 ½ years.

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
Aft the tenant vacated on 28 February 2023, the landlord was troubled by a strong smell of cat urine though the premises. He had Spick Carpet Cleaning inspect.
Their report, accompanied by photos is dated 9 March 2023. The general observations were: “9 March 2023 General findings: Malodour was detected as soon as entering through the front door. Odour is particularly strong in the upstairs Master Bedroom walk-in wardrobe area. Urine contamination was visible on the back of the single leather chair in the lounge. Urine malodour gets stronger as soon as you walk down the stairs to the lower level. Malodour is present in every room. Nothing was noted on the drapes at initial attendance. Checks were made to all lower walls using UV light. Contamination is not overly noticeable despite the strong smell. Will need a night-time service visit to use UV light under better conditions to see contamination as too much light is present – large windows with no block- out blinds or drapes.” 1 S.91A(2) RTA 2 S.91A(2)(e) and (f) RTA 3 S.91B(2)(c) RTA
Recommended actions were: “Lodge insurance claim with Broker Emerre & Hathaway Clean affected lower walls (in addition to initial treatment done at the initial visit) Use Ozone generators and Hydroxyl generators to deal with airborne odours Treat and clean carpet throughout the home Have a painter apply BIN sealer to lock in any remaining odours and repaint”
The landlord made an insurance claim but because a separate $750.00 excess would have been required in respect of the urine contamination in each of the rooms in the house, it was not worthwhile to pursue.
The landlord had Spick clean the premises. Its invoice shows that a comprehensive treatment, as recommended, was required, at a cost to the landlord of $4,365.13.
I find it proved on balance that the cost of the work undertaken by Spick is a loss caused to the landlord by a beach of the tenant’s obligation to return the premises in reasonably clean condition.
The landlord is entitled to have the bond paid to him to offset that loss.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442308 — Cleanliness at 30 Sirrah Street, Okitu, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442308 — Cleanliness at 30 Sirrah Street, Okitu, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.