What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473999 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 5473999?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $73.36 awarded to landlord; Rent For Final Week: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473999?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14113380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473999 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 5473999?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $73.36 awarded to landlord; Rent For Final Week: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473999?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14113380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473999 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473999 — net $841.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent for final week	$475.00	Rent for final week
Carpet Cleaning (initial clean	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning (initial clean
Carpet Cleaning (deep clean	$45.00	Carpet Cleaning (deep clean
Painting	$73.36	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$841.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$841.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $841.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 25 August 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement provided for a residential tenancy from 19 February 2026 for a fixed term until 20 May 2026. The tenant moved in early, on 15 February 2026.
There were difficulties about the rent, the bond, the condition of the premises and who was living there, and the tenant vacated on 29 March 2026. The 4- week bond was not paid, and several reasons for that were given by the tenant, including that he was in dispute with his previous landlord. Rent Arrears
The tenant accepted that the last week’s rent was owed. I award one week’s rent of $475.00. Cleaning and Tenant Damage
At the end of the tenancy, it is a legal requirement that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy.
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.
There was damage to a step (or sill) between the interior and exterior of the unit, which is on the upper two storeys and has a balcony. There was also wall damage behind the fridge and the carpet required cleaning.
The tenant disputed these claims. He submitted that the step was fair wear and tear, neither he nor his partner smoked, and the wall damage could have been pre-existing.
The landlord said she had lived at the premises for 3½ years without the step being worn. She had found cigarette butts on the roof below the balcony but had not thought to take photographs before washing them away. The carpets were cleaned and deodorised (invoiced on 27 March 2026) and then cleaned again (invoiced on 31 March 2026). The second invoice stated: Additional cost to carry out deep clean and odour control. Please note this is a best effort attempt to treat cigarette smoke.
The tenant placed emphasis on a text message sent by the landlord at the final inspection (which the tenant knew about but did not attend) sent on 29 March 2026 at 5.29pm: No real issues with how you’ve left the place except some paint scuffed off the door sill to the deck I’ll have to paint and the scuff on the wall behind the fridge. Will get the carpet cleaned to freshen the place up, there is [an] alcohol smell but I doubt tenancy services will take that out of your pocket...”.
The tenant replied that the alcohol smell was probably the cleaning products he had used.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the carpet needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. This was because of cigarette smoke rather than stains. It is just possible to see cigarette butts on the roof below the balcony in one of the landlord’s photographs. The landlord did raise the issue of the smell when she texted the tenant on 29 March – albeit not of cigarettes. The invoice from the carpet cleaners (referred to above) also supports the landlord’s evidence.
The tenant pointed out that the landlord did not refer to a cigarette smell and did not identify any carpet damage in her text, and I agree, but it is possible the smell was not immediately noticeable if the premises were well-ventilated. The landlord did recognise that there was a need to clean the carpet and that there was an odour. The landlord recorded “cigarette butts on roof and guttering below balcony” and referred to an alcohol and cigarette smell on the inspection record she signed and dated 29 March 2026.
The tenant said he did not accept that the alleged presence of cigarette butts outside established that he or his guests were smoking at the property. He suggested that they could have originated from neighbouring apartments. However, the Tribunal is entitled to draw an inference based on all the evidence. Further, the tenant is inviting the Tribunal to find that other occupants were in breach of the body corporate rules. There is no evidence for that assumption. I have considered the tenant’s point that, if they were smoking outside, there would be no smell inside, and if they were smoking inside, the smoke alarms would have gone off. It is, however, possible to get around smoke alarms (the Tribunal is aware that they are sometimes removed) and the landlord said the kitchen had heat sensors and not smoke alarms. The evidence on this point is equivocal.
The tenant said the carpet was not professionally cleaned when he moved in. That does not mean, however, that it was not clean, and the landlord gave the impression that she cared about how the property was presented. The landlord was not required to have the carpets professionally cleaned prior to the tenancy.
I do not view the damaged step as fair wear and tear, although I acknowledge it was only minor damage. Given the tenancy lasted just over a month, I consider that the damage would not have been caused with normal everyday use within such a short time. The landlord suggested that it became unusually worn because one of the occupants was smoking on the balcony. I award the cost of repairing the step.
I disallow the claim for damage behind the fridge. There are no ingoing inspection photographs, and the written inspection reports are not very detailed. The damage could have been there at the start of the tenancy and only discovered later. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been partly successful. It is also relevant that the bond was not paid. The effect of this is that the landlord now has an award but no bond as security. I award the filing fee to the landlord.
I also grant name suppression to the landlord as requested. She has been substantially successful as required by the legislation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473999 — net $841.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent for final week	$475.00	Rent for final week
Carpet Cleaning (initial clean	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning (initial clean
Carpet Cleaning (deep clean	$45.00	Carpet Cleaning (deep clean
Painting	$73.36	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$841.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$841.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $841.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 25 August 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement provided for a residential tenancy from 19 February 2026 for a fixed term until 20 May 2026. The tenant moved in early, on 15 February 2026.
There were difficulties about the rent, the bond, the condition of the premises and who was living there, and the tenant vacated on 29 March 2026. The 4- week bond was not paid, and several reasons for that were given by the tenant, including that he was in dispute with his previous landlord. Rent Arrears
The tenant accepted that the last week’s rent was owed. I award one week’s rent of $475.00. Cleaning and Tenant Damage
At the end of the tenancy, it is a legal requirement that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy.
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.
There was damage to a step (or sill) between the interior and exterior of the unit, which is on the upper two storeys and has a balcony. There was also wall damage behind the fridge and the carpet required cleaning.
The tenant disputed these claims. He submitted that the step was fair wear and tear, neither he nor his partner smoked, and the wall damage could have been pre-existing.
The landlord said she had lived at the premises for 3½ years without the step being worn. She had found cigarette butts on the roof below the balcony but had not thought to take photographs before washing them away. The carpets were cleaned and deodorised (invoiced on 27 March 2026) and then cleaned again (invoiced on 31 March 2026). The second invoice stated: Additional cost to carry out deep clean and odour control. Please note this is a best effort attempt to treat cigarette smoke.
The tenant placed emphasis on a text message sent by the landlord at the final inspection (which the tenant knew about but did not attend) sent on 29 March 2026 at 5.29pm: No real issues with how you’ve left the place except some paint scuffed off the door sill to the deck I’ll have to paint and the scuff on the wall behind the fridge. Will get the carpet cleaned to freshen the place up, there is [an] alcohol smell but I doubt tenancy services will take that out of your pocket...”.
The tenant replied that the alcohol smell was probably the cleaning products he had used.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the carpet needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. This was because of cigarette smoke rather than stains. It is just possible to see cigarette butts on the roof below the balcony in one of the landlord’s photographs. The landlord did raise the issue of the smell when she texted the tenant on 29 March – albeit not of cigarettes. The invoice from the carpet cleaners (referred to above) also supports the landlord’s evidence.
The tenant pointed out that the landlord did not refer to a cigarette smell and did not identify any carpet damage in her text, and I agree, but it is possible the smell was not immediately noticeable if the premises were well-ventilated. The landlord did recognise that there was a need to clean the carpet and that there was an odour. The landlord recorded “cigarette butts on roof and guttering below balcony” and referred to an alcohol and cigarette smell on the inspection record she signed and dated 29 March 2026.
The tenant said he did not accept that the alleged presence of cigarette butts outside established that he or his guests were smoking at the property. He suggested that they could have originated from neighbouring apartments. However, the Tribunal is entitled to draw an inference based on all the evidence. Further, the tenant is inviting the Tribunal to find that other occupants were in breach of the body corporate rules. There is no evidence for that assumption. I have considered the tenant’s point that, if they were smoking outside, there would be no smell inside, and if they were smoking inside, the smoke alarms would have gone off. It is, however, possible to get around smoke alarms (the Tribunal is aware that they are sometimes removed) and the landlord said the kitchen had heat sensors and not smoke alarms. The evidence on this point is equivocal.
The tenant said the carpet was not professionally cleaned when he moved in. That does not mean, however, that it was not clean, and the landlord gave the impression that she cared about how the property was presented. The landlord was not required to have the carpets professionally cleaned prior to the tenancy.
I do not view the damaged step as fair wear and tear, although I acknowledge it was only minor damage. Given the tenancy lasted just over a month, I consider that the damage would not have been caused with normal everyday use within such a short time. The landlord suggested that it became unusually worn because one of the occupants was smoking on the balcony. I award the cost of repairing the step.
I disallow the claim for damage behind the fridge. There are no ingoing inspection photographs, and the written inspection reports are not very detailed. The damage could have been there at the start of the tenancy and only discovered later. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been partly successful. It is also relevant that the bond was not paid. The effect of this is that the landlord now has an award but no bond as security. I award the filing fee to the landlord.
I also grant name suppression to the landlord as requested. She has been substantially successful as required by the legislation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473999 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473999 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.