What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447198 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 5447198?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,392.86 awarded to landlord; Heatpump: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447198?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13860668-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447198 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 5447198?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,392.86 awarded to landlord; Heatpump: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447198?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13860668-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5447198 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5447198 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447198 — net $2,870.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/01/2026	$1,392.86	Rent arrears to 29/01/2026
Replace cooktop	$400.00	Replace cooktop
Carpet repair	$1,000.00	Carpet repair
Repairs: Heatpump	$50.00	Repairs: Heatpump
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,870.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,870.86

Claims and awards for application 5447198 — net $2,870.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 29/01/2026

Amount: $1,392.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 29/01/2026

Replace cooktop

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace cooktop

Carpet repair

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet repair

Repairs: Heatpump

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heatpump

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,870.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 29/01/2026$1,392.86 Replace cooktop$400.00 Carpet repair$1,000.00 Repairs: Heatpump$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,870.86 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,870.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord advised that the tenant applied unilaterally for and was granted a Bond Refund from the Bond Centre despite the landlord notifying the Bond Centre that the bond was in dispute.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agrees with the rent arrears sought.

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 that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks the cost of cleaning the heat pump and rangehood filters. The tenants stated that they arranged for professional cleaners at the end of the tenancy and provided an invoice for the cleaning.
After the exit inspection on 28 January the landlord messaged the tenant and raised issues that needed further cleaning. The message stated “The walls throughout the property have not been property cleaned. There is dirt and grime on the walls. The inside and outside of the kitchen cupboards are also not clean”. The tenants called their cleaner back the following day to do further cleaning. An email from the tenant’s cleaner confirming this was provided.
The tenants stated that the landlord did not raise the issue of the heat pump and rangehood filters at the exit inspection.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having considered the evidence in this case I find that the landlord has not proved the claim for compensation for cleaning the heat pump and rangehood filters on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: -the tenant arranged cleaning of the premises and a further clean to address the issues raised by the landlord -I am satisfied that, although not immaculate, the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy -the landlord did not raise the issue of the cleaning of filters until more than two weeks after the tenancy ended

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to cooktop (a)The glass cook top was chipped during the tenancy. The landlord sought the sum of $568.00 for the repair. (b)The tenant accepted the damage was caused during the tenancy but queried the amount claimed. (c)The landlord advised that since filing the application the insurance claim had been accepted and the excess is $400.00. (d)As the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess the tenant is ordered to pay the amount of $400.00.
Damage to the heat pump by the tenant’s dog (a) The tenants accepted liability for this damage and the compensation of $50.00 sought for the repair.
Damage to carpets due to pet odour (a) The landlord claimed that the tenant’s dog damaged the carpet and sought $150 for an inspection report and $3450.00 for replacement costs. (b) The tenants had a large German Shepherd dog at the premises with the consent of the landlord. (c) The landlord provided the following evidence in support: -A copy of emails with the tenant including an email to the tenant dated 4 February 2026 “Regarding the carpet, there is still a noticeable dog odor. We require a professional carpet cleaning company to clean the carpet again to ensure the property meets rental standards.” -The entry inspection report recording that the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. -A copy of a UV report from [Carpet Cleaning company 1] completed on 13 February 2026 together with photographs which stated that a smell was noticed and evidence of urine had been located in two bedrooms and in the hallway including the staircase. The report recommended carpet replacement. -The property manager stated that although she did not smell the pet odour at the exit inspection this was because the tenant had perfumed the premises and on subsequent visits the odour was obvious to her. -The property manager advised that on viewing the premises the incoming tenant complained of a dog smell. -A copy of a quote dated 23 February 2026 from [Carpet Cleaning company 2] for carpet replacement in the sum of $3450.00 GST inclusive. The property manager advised that the work has not yet been done and there are new tenants living in the premises. -An email from the landlord’s insurance company declining the claim as they have assessed it was caused by pet damage and this is excluded under the policy. (d) The tenants disputed this damage. The tenants stated that their cleaner cleaned the carpets prior to them vacating and provided an email from their cleaner regarding this. They claimed that the property manager advised them to use perfume to mask the smell of the dog and stated that she did not refer to a smell at the exit inspection. (e) The tenants stated that their dog was often outside and that as it was a large dog they disputed that the patch marks that showed up on the UV report were caused by their dog. (f) I have carefully considered the evidence and find that it is more probable than not that there was some damage to the carpet during this tenancy from the tenant’s dog because: - a dog odour was noticed by at least three people after the tenancy - Although the UV report showed marks that could have been caused by other biological matter, as the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy, it is more probable than not that it was caused during this tenancy - I find that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the damage was carelessly caused. (g) The landlord is seeking compensation of $150 plus $3460 for the inspection report and carpet replacement. Awards of compensation must be for actual and reasonable costs incurred to remedy damage. The landlord did not have the carpet cleaned after the tenancy as the tenant refused to pay for a further clean. The landlord has not replaced the carpet and advised that they are awaiting the outcome of the hearing. Only one quote has been provided for carpet replacement which is over three months old and this is from a carpet cleaning company not a carpet layer. When the landlord is seeking compensation based on a quote it is usual for more than one quote to be provided. (h) It is difficult for the Tribunal to assess appropriate compensation when there is not clear evidence of the actual cost to remedy. The tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks rent and this totals $3000.00, however, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this amount. I must take a cautious approach when there is limited evidence regarding the cost to remedy and the work has not yet been done. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord a lump sum being one third of the maximum liability in the sum of $1000.00 for carpet damage.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447198 — net $2,870.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/01/2026	$1,392.86	Rent arrears to 29/01/2026
Replace cooktop	$400.00	Replace cooktop
Carpet repair	$1,000.00	Carpet repair
Repairs: Heatpump	$50.00	Repairs: Heatpump
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,870.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,870.86

Claims and awards for application 5447198 — net $2,870.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 29/01/2026

Amount: $1,392.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 29/01/2026

Replace cooktop

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace cooktop

Carpet repair

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet repair

Repairs: Heatpump

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heatpump

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,870.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 29/01/2026$1,392.86 Replace cooktop$400.00 Carpet repair$1,000.00 Repairs: Heatpump$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,870.86 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,870.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord advised that the tenant applied unilaterally for and was granted a Bond Refund from the Bond Centre despite the landlord notifying the Bond Centre that the bond was in dispute.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agrees with the rent arrears sought.

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 that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks the cost of cleaning the heat pump and rangehood filters. The tenants stated that they arranged for professional cleaners at the end of the tenancy and provided an invoice for the cleaning.
After the exit inspection on 28 January the landlord messaged the tenant and raised issues that needed further cleaning. The message stated “The walls throughout the property have not been property cleaned. There is dirt and grime on the walls. The inside and outside of the kitchen cupboards are also not clean”. The tenants called their cleaner back the following day to do further cleaning. An email from the tenant’s cleaner confirming this was provided.
The tenants stated that the landlord did not raise the issue of the heat pump and rangehood filters at the exit inspection.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having considered the evidence in this case I find that the landlord has not proved the claim for compensation for cleaning the heat pump and rangehood filters on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: -the tenant arranged cleaning of the premises and a further clean to address the issues raised by the landlord -I am satisfied that, although not immaculate, the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy -the landlord did not raise the issue of the cleaning of filters until more than two weeks after the tenancy ended

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to cooktop (a)The glass cook top was chipped during the tenancy. The landlord sought the sum of $568.00 for the repair. (b)The tenant accepted the damage was caused during the tenancy but queried the amount claimed. (c)The landlord advised that since filing the application the insurance claim had been accepted and the excess is $400.00. (d)As the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess the tenant is ordered to pay the amount of $400.00.
Damage to the heat pump by the tenant’s dog (a) The tenants accepted liability for this damage and the compensation of $50.00 sought for the repair.
Damage to carpets due to pet odour (a) The landlord claimed that the tenant’s dog damaged the carpet and sought $150 for an inspection report and $3450.00 for replacement costs. (b) The tenants had a large German Shepherd dog at the premises with the consent of the landlord. (c) The landlord provided the following evidence in support: -A copy of emails with the tenant including an email to the tenant dated 4 February 2026 “Regarding the carpet, there is still a noticeable dog odor. We require a professional carpet cleaning company to clean the carpet again to ensure the property meets rental standards.” -The entry inspection report recording that the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. -A copy of a UV report from [Carpet Cleaning company 1] completed on 13 February 2026 together with photographs which stated that a smell was noticed and evidence of urine had been located in two bedrooms and in the hallway including the staircase. The report recommended carpet replacement. -The property manager stated that although she did not smell the pet odour at the exit inspection this was because the tenant had perfumed the premises and on subsequent visits the odour was obvious to her. -The property manager advised that on viewing the premises the incoming tenant complained of a dog smell. -A copy of a quote dated 23 February 2026 from [Carpet Cleaning company 2] for carpet replacement in the sum of $3450.00 GST inclusive. The property manager advised that the work has not yet been done and there are new tenants living in the premises. -An email from the landlord’s insurance company declining the claim as they have assessed it was caused by pet damage and this is excluded under the policy. (d) The tenants disputed this damage. The tenants stated that their cleaner cleaned the carpets prior to them vacating and provided an email from their cleaner regarding this. They claimed that the property manager advised them to use perfume to mask the smell of the dog and stated that she did not refer to a smell at the exit inspection. (e) The tenants stated that their dog was often outside and that as it was a large dog they disputed that the patch marks that showed up on the UV report were caused by their dog. (f) I have carefully considered the evidence and find that it is more probable than not that there was some damage to the carpet during this tenancy from the tenant’s dog because: - a dog odour was noticed by at least three people after the tenancy - Although the UV report showed marks that could have been caused by other biological matter, as the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy, it is more probable than not that it was caused during this tenancy - I find that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the damage was carelessly caused. (g) The landlord is seeking compensation of $150 plus $3460 for the inspection report and carpet replacement. Awards of compensation must be for actual and reasonable costs incurred to remedy damage. The landlord did not have the carpet cleaned after the tenancy as the tenant refused to pay for a further clean. The landlord has not replaced the carpet and advised that they are awaiting the outcome of the hearing. Only one quote has been provided for carpet replacement which is over three months old and this is from a carpet cleaning company not a carpet layer. When the landlord is seeking compensation based on a quote it is usual for more than one quote to be provided. (h) It is difficult for the Tribunal to assess appropriate compensation when there is not clear evidence of the actual cost to remedy. The tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks rent and this totals $3000.00, however, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this amount. I must take a cautious approach when there is limited evidence regarding the cost to remedy and the work has not yet been done. Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord a lump sum being one third of the maximum liability in the sum of $1000.00 for carpet damage.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447198 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447198 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.