How much money was awarded in case 5449368?

Been Made In This Case And The Tribu…: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449368?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5449368?

Been Made In This Case And The Tribu…: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449368?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Blantyre Road, Wakari, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449368 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449368 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449368. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant	$390.00		been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant
b. Replacement of garage remote	$50.00		b. Replacement of garage remote
c. Carpet cleaning	$290.00		c. Carpet cleaning
Bond		$2,600.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

The tenant is to pay $390.00 to the landlord from the bond as follows: a. Repairs to the back door$50.00 b. Replacement of garage remote$50.00 c. Carpet cleaning$290.00

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $390.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,210.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The parties agreed to settle the landlord’s claims for minor repairs to the back door and replacement of the garage door remote. The agreed amounts are recorded in this Order.

The tenant kept a dog at the property with the consent of the landlord throughout the three-year tenancy. The landlord’s claim was for $750.00 for the cleaning of the carpets due to dog hair left behind at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant disputed that a commercial clean was necessary and believed that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. The landlord’s claim

The landlord provided in evidence: a. Three photographs of what appeared to be hair on the carpets and one photograph of hair on two steps of the stairs. b. An invoice for $580.00 from a commercial carpet cleaner dated 16 January 2026 for cleaning all the carpets at the premises which included the note: “Please note there was excessive pet fur built up in the carpets.” c. The landlord gave evidence that the new tenant at the premises complained of the presence of pet fur in the carpet on 10 February 2026. d. The landlord therefore instructed the carpet cleaner to carry out further cleaning and provided a copy of an invoice for $170.00 dated 19 February 2026 with the narration: “Please note that this job had large amounts of embedded pet hair. In total we have spent an extra 4 hours over what an average carpet clean should take on a house that size. While it is still not perfect, it should be reduced enough to not cause allergens to the current tenants (to be confirmed)”.

The landlord’s claim was for $750.00 being the amount of the two invoices. The tenant’s position

The tenant’s position was that: a. He left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy as required by section 41(1)(e)(iii) RTA. The tenants expended considerable effort in cleaning the premises at the end of their tenancy. In particular, every room was vacuumed as they were throughout the tenancy. b. The landlord’s photographic evidence was insufficient to justify the high cost of cleaning the carpets. The tenant is not required to leave the premises spotless by removing all the dog hair, just leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. c. His dog was present at the premises throughout the tenancy in the downstairs area occupied by the tenant and the stairs. He estimated this area to have been half the area of the premises. d. His dog occasionally went upstairs where it was not welcomed by the other tenants. He did not accept any responsibility to have commercially cleaned the upstairs bedrooms, hallway or lounge. Consideration and decision

There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.

A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.

However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.

Prior to the introduction of the new pet provisions in the RTA, the Tribunal has consistently held that it is reasonable for a landlord to require a tenant to have the carpets commercially cleaned where the landlord consents to a dog living at the property. Recent decisions of the Tribunal granting permission to a tenant to keep a dog under the new pet provisions (sections 42C to 42G RTA) have imposed a condition that the carpets be professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy.

Section 42G RTA expressly provides that a reasonable condition to a landlord’s consent to a tenant having a pet includes “a condition requiring the carpets in the premises to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy”.

It is therefore appropriate that the tenant be responsible for having the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of a three-year tenancy in which one of the occupants was a dog. Such cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonable clean.

However, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it that the dog hair and the requirement for cleaning extended to the whole of the house. The photographic evidence is of only four isolated areas. While the landlord’s contractor’s invoice is for cleaning all the carpets in the house, there is no indication that the issue was spread evenly throughout the house.

The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that his dog occupied approximately one half of the inside of the house with only limited access to the upstairs portion. There is no clear evidence from the landlord that contradicts this sufficiently to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the dog fur was an issue, outside of the areas accepted by the tenant.

It is therefore appropriate that the tenant be responsible for one half of the costs incurred by the landlord in having the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

It remains to consider whether the tenant should pay one half of both amounts claimed and whether the second clean was required to bring the carpets to a reasonably clean condition.

The only evidence that the carpets were not reasonably clean after the first professional clean is the fact that the new tenant complained of pet fur. The landlord’s contractor’s evidence is that he had to get onto his hands and knees to remove fur by hand. This suggests that this final clean took the carpets to a standard to satisfy the new tenant which went beyond reasonably clean. A reasonably competent professional can be expected to get the carpets reasonably clean on the first attempt. This is not to impugn the landlord’s contractor’s competence, only to note that he thought the carpets were reasonably clean after the first clean.

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for meeting one half of the landlord’s first invoice, but not the second.

As both parties have had success in these applications it is appropriate that each meets their own filing fee and that their names be suppressed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449368. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant	$390.00		been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant
b. Replacement of garage remote	$50.00		b. Replacement of garage remote
c. Carpet cleaning	$290.00		c. Carpet cleaning
Bond		$2,600.00