What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511077 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers

How much money was awarded in case 5511077?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door Key: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $124.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13888604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511077 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers

How much money was awarded in case 5511077?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door Key: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $124.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13888604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Picton Place, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5511077 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

6 Picton Place, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5511077 — Property damage | 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 5511077 — net $1,781.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair central vacuum handle	$230.00	Repair central vacuum handle
Clean ensuite bathroom	$290.00	Clean ensuite bathroom
Replace front door key	$9.00	Replace front door key
Rubbish removal	$124.20	Rubbish removal
Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess	$750.00	Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess
Repair lounge voile curtains	$350.00	Repair lounge voile curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,781.20
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,781.20

Claims and awards for application 5511077 — net $1,781.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repair central vacuum handle

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair central vacuum handle

Clean ensuite bathroom

Amount: $290.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean ensuite bathroom

Replace front door key

Amount: $9.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace front door key

Rubbish removal

Amount: $124.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess

Dismissed claims

Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Sarah Burdett and [The landlord/s] $1,781.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (BN-10102346) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Sarah Burdett and [The landlord/s]: $1,781.20 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $978.80
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 13 July 2026, the tenant by phone and the landlord represented by Ms Belu and Ms Edwards in person.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the reimbursement of commercial carpet cleaning costs he incurred. Background
The tenancy started on 5 August 2024 and ended on 5 April 2026.
The tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy because he believed that was what the landlord required. He now seeks reimbursement of the carpet cleaning cost.
The landlord raised claims against the bond. The tenant has accepted some of the landlord’s claims – the repair of a central vacuum handle; the cleaning of the ensuite bathroom; cutting a key for the front door; and rubbish removal. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims for the replacement of the lounge carpet and for the repair of voile (net) curtains in the lounge. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains? •Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded? Law
At the end of a 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 1 .
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 2 . Discussion

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet?

The tenant states that he arranged for the cleaning of the lounge carpet by a commercial cleaner recommended by the landlord because he thought the landlord required that to be done. He instructed the cleaner to remove dog hair, but as there were no stains visible, no other cleaning was required.
When the landlord asked the cleaner to return to remove staining, the stains became more pronounced. The landlord’s insurer accepted a claim for carpet replacement.
The landlord has claimed the excess on the owner’s insurance (its claim cannot exceed that amount).
The landlord produced a letter from the carpet cleaning professional who did the work. He states: ...The carpet was in good condition, but I noticed a stain and plenty of dog fur. I removed the hair from the carpet, but didn’t use any stain removal solutions, as per the tenant’s instructions. Later on, I received a work order from A1 Property Managers, asking me to go back on site and remove the stain from the lounge carpet. From my experience, the stain was caused by dog urine and, unfortunately, I was not able to remove it...
I provided the tenant with the opportunity to adjourn the hearing to respond to that evidence, but he did not wish to do so. He gave evidence that the carpet cleaner who wrote the report told him something completely different and queried why any carpet cleaning was required. He said the stain developed while the carpet was drying over Easter drawn up from the underlay. He said 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA the stain came about only due to the landlord’s requirement that the carpet be commercially cleaned.
The landlord’s vacate letter did not require commercial carpet cleaning. It stated: If you need to get the carpets cleaned, please book a commercial carpet cleaner and provide us with a receipt. Do not use rug doctor at this property...
The Tribunal relies on the written statement of the cleaner who did the work. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the stain on the lounge carpet was caused by urine from the tenant’s dog. Carpet cleaning made it more apparent, but there was some evidence of carpet staining before the cleaning was done. I find that the tenant is liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet, limited to the amount of the insurance excess.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains?

The landlord’s photos show that the lounge voile curtains were ripped. Ms Belu gave evidence that the replacement cost was well beyond the repair cost. The repairs have been completed.
The tenant said that the curtains were never pulled and remained behind the drapes for the duration of the tenancy.
The fact of the damage cannot be denied; the photographic evidence shows the ripped curtains.
The tenant referred to the age of the curtains. That would be a relevant factor if the curtains had been replaced. The Tribunal would have had to apply depreciation due to age. But this claim is for a repair, regardless of the age of the curtains.
The landlord produced the ingoing property inspection report in evidence. No damage to the voile curtains is recorded nor evident in the photos.
I find it probable that the damage to the curtains occurred during the tenancy and the tenant is therefore liable for the repair cost.

Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded?

I dismiss this claim for 2 reasons. First, the landlord did not expressly require the tenant to have the carpets professionally cleaned. Second, the tenant kept 2 dogs inside the premises. When tenants keep animals inside premises the Tribunal considers it reasonable for the carpets to be professionally cleaned. Though not a statutory requirement it is reasonable for a landlord to require professional cleaning in that case to remove allergens that might affect another tenant. So, even if the landlord had required professional carpet cleaning, the Tribunal would not have found that request to be unreasonable. Result
The tenant’s application for a refund of carpet cleaning costs is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims are successful.
The tenant will pay the landlord $1,781.20 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application.
The bond will be split between the parties - $1,781.20 to the landlord and $978.80 to the tenant. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

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 5511077 — net $1,781.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair central vacuum handle	$230.00	Repair central vacuum handle
Clean ensuite bathroom	$290.00	Clean ensuite bathroom
Replace front door key	$9.00	Replace front door key
Rubbish removal	$124.20	Rubbish removal
Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess	$750.00	Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess
Repair lounge voile curtains	$350.00	Repair lounge voile curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,781.20
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,781.20

Claims and awards for application 5511077 — net $1,781.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repair central vacuum handle

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair central vacuum handle

Clean ensuite bathroom

Amount: $290.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean ensuite bathroom

Replace front door key

Amount: $9.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace front door key

Rubbish removal

Amount: $124.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace lounge carpet (insurance excess

Dismissed claims

Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Sarah Burdett and [The landlord/s] $1,781.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (BN-10102346) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Sarah Burdett and [The landlord/s]: $1,781.20 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $978.80
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 13 July 2026, the tenant by phone and the landlord represented by Ms Belu and Ms Edwards in person.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the reimbursement of commercial carpet cleaning costs he incurred. Background
The tenancy started on 5 August 2024 and ended on 5 April 2026.
The tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy because he believed that was what the landlord required. He now seeks reimbursement of the carpet cleaning cost.
The landlord raised claims against the bond. The tenant has accepted some of the landlord’s claims – the repair of a central vacuum handle; the cleaning of the ensuite bathroom; cutting a key for the front door; and rubbish removal. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims for the replacement of the lounge carpet and for the repair of voile (net) curtains in the lounge. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains? •Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded? Law
At the end of a 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 1 .
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 2 . Discussion

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet?

The tenant states that he arranged for the cleaning of the lounge carpet by a commercial cleaner recommended by the landlord because he thought the landlord required that to be done. He instructed the cleaner to remove dog hair, but as there were no stains visible, no other cleaning was required.
When the landlord asked the cleaner to return to remove staining, the stains became more pronounced. The landlord’s insurer accepted a claim for carpet replacement.
The landlord has claimed the excess on the owner’s insurance (its claim cannot exceed that amount).
The landlord produced a letter from the carpet cleaning professional who did the work. He states: ...The carpet was in good condition, but I noticed a stain and plenty of dog fur. I removed the hair from the carpet, but didn’t use any stain removal solutions, as per the tenant’s instructions. Later on, I received a work order from A1 Property Managers, asking me to go back on site and remove the stain from the lounge carpet. From my experience, the stain was caused by dog urine and, unfortunately, I was not able to remove it...
I provided the tenant with the opportunity to adjourn the hearing to respond to that evidence, but he did not wish to do so. He gave evidence that the carpet cleaner who wrote the report told him something completely different and queried why any carpet cleaning was required. He said the stain developed while the carpet was drying over Easter drawn up from the underlay. He said 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA the stain came about only due to the landlord’s requirement that the carpet be commercially cleaned.
The landlord’s vacate letter did not require commercial carpet cleaning. It stated: If you need to get the carpets cleaned, please book a commercial carpet cleaner and provide us with a receipt. Do not use rug doctor at this property...
The Tribunal relies on the written statement of the cleaner who did the work. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the stain on the lounge carpet was caused by urine from the tenant’s dog. Carpet cleaning made it more apparent, but there was some evidence of carpet staining before the cleaning was done. I find that the tenant is liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet, limited to the amount of the insurance excess.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains?

The landlord’s photos show that the lounge voile curtains were ripped. Ms Belu gave evidence that the replacement cost was well beyond the repair cost. The repairs have been completed.
The tenant said that the curtains were never pulled and remained behind the drapes for the duration of the tenancy.
The fact of the damage cannot be denied; the photographic evidence shows the ripped curtains.
The tenant referred to the age of the curtains. That would be a relevant factor if the curtains had been replaced. The Tribunal would have had to apply depreciation due to age. But this claim is for a repair, regardless of the age of the curtains.
The landlord produced the ingoing property inspection report in evidence. No damage to the voile curtains is recorded nor evident in the photos.
I find it probable that the damage to the curtains occurred during the tenancy and the tenant is therefore liable for the repair cost.

Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded?

I dismiss this claim for 2 reasons. First, the landlord did not expressly require the tenant to have the carpets professionally cleaned. Second, the tenant kept 2 dogs inside the premises. When tenants keep animals inside premises the Tribunal considers it reasonable for the carpets to be professionally cleaned. Though not a statutory requirement it is reasonable for a landlord to require professional cleaning in that case to remove allergens that might affect another tenant. So, even if the landlord had required professional carpet cleaning, the Tribunal would not have found that request to be unreasonable. Result
The tenant’s application for a refund of carpet cleaning costs is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims are successful.
The tenant will pay the landlord $1,781.20 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application.
The bond will be split between the parties - $1,781.20 to the landlord and $978.80 to the tenant. Name suppression
When asked, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511077 — Property damage at 6 Picton Place, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511077 — Property damage at 6 Picton Place, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains?

Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the lounge carpet?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing the voile curtains?

Should the tenant have the carpet cleaning cost refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions