What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5067859?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited T/As Friendly Flats Hindan Khan to pay The Rent House

How much money was awarded in case 5067859?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067859?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5067859?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited T/As Friendly Flats Hindan Khan to pay The Rent House

How much money was awarded in case 5067859?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067859?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63 Orchard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067859 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067859. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$362.25		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Hindan.K Limited T/As Friendly Flats Hindan Khan to pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Akhil Garg And Duong Thi Anh Pham $389.25 calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 January 2025. The hearing was originally to be conducted by video conference but due to technical issues it was converted to a hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has filed a claim for $362.25 for carpet cleaning costs, asserting that the cleaning was necessary due to marks and damage caused by cannabis-growing equipment. In support of the claim, the landlord has provided an inspection report dated 10 May 2024, along with photographs, which confirm the property was used for growing marijuana and an invoice for carpet cleaning. The property inspection report states: “Upon inspecting the property, it is evident the occupants were using the property to grow marijuana. Given they knew there was an inspection, it was likely all tents, grow equipment, and plants were removed prior. There were fresh leaves on the floor along with the plant feed and bulbs.” The carpet cleaning invoice from Procare Services notes that two bedrooms required steam cleaning, deodorising, and sanitising.
Under section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), tenants are required to ensure that the premises are not intentionally or carelessly damaged. Additionally, section 40(1)(b) prohibits tenants from using the property for unlawful purposes. The use of the property to grow cannabis constitutes a clear breach of these obligations, and the damage to the carpet resulting from the grow operation—including marks left by the equipment and the presence of plant materials—would necessitate professional cleaning.
Section 41 of the Act further holds tenants liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent. Even if third parties contributed to the damage, the tenant remains responsible for the costs incurred to address the issue.
In this case, the tenant had sublease the premises to subtenants. While the tenant argues they had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the loss, they say they were not informed or did not agree to the cost for carpet cleaning, but this does not absolve them of liability for their sub tenant breaching their obligations under the Act. The landlord is entitled to recover reasonable costs for remedial work necessary to repair damage caused by the sub tenant’s unlawful use of the property. Providing notice of the cost beforehand may have been preferable but is not a requirement for liability in this case. The key issue is that the costs incurred were directly attributable to the sub tenant’s breach and were necessary to remediate the damage.
The tenant disputes that two bedrooms required carpet cleaning, arguing that the property inspection report references only one bedroom, and the photographic evidence does not substantiate cleaning in both. However, the carpet cleaning invoice clearly states, “To inspect and steam clean, deodorise, and sanitise as required throughout 2-bedroom property. Hallway - extra room/area.” Furthermore, the inspection report and accompanying photographs confirm the presence of marks on the carpet in bedrooms 3 and 4. Prudent cleaning was necessary due to the property’s use for cannabis cultivation, which raises health and safety concerns.
The photographs also show that, despite plastic sheeting on the floors, marks were present on the carpet in the affected areas. The use of plastic sheeting does not negate the fact that equipment and activities related to cannabis cultivation caused damage to the property. Even if some stains were less visible, the presence of any contamination or residue justified the professional cleaning to ensure the property was restored to a clean and sanitary state, as expected under a tenancy agreement.
Health and safety considerations further support the landlord’s actions. Cannabis cultivation indoors can result in contamination from soil, fertilisers, or chemicals used in the process, and professional cleaning is a prudent step to address these risks. The cleaning costs were reasonable and necessary to mitigate potential health hazards and restore the premises to an acceptable standard.
While the tenant disputes the extent of the cleaning required, the property inspection report, photographic evidence, and invoice all support the landlord’s claim that professional carpet cleaning was appropriate. The cleaning was required due to damage caused by the sub tenant’s unlawful use of the premises in breach of sections 40(1)(a), 40(1)(b), and 41 of the Act. The tenant’s liability arises not only from the physical damage caused but also from the unlawful use of the property, which necessitated additional steps to address potential health and safety risks.
For these reasons, I find the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning costs of $362.25.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067859. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$362.25		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Hindan.K Limited T/As Friendly Flats Hindan Khan to pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Akhil Garg And Duong Thi Anh Pham $389.25 calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 January 2025. The hearing was originally to be conducted by video conference but due to technical issues it was converted to a hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has filed a claim for $362.25 for carpet cleaning costs, asserting that the cleaning was necessary due to marks and damage caused by cannabis-growing equipment. In support of the claim, the landlord has provided an inspection report dated 10 May 2024, along with photographs, which confirm the property was used for growing marijuana and an invoice for carpet cleaning. The property inspection report states: “Upon inspecting the property, it is evident the occupants were using the property to grow marijuana. Given they knew there was an inspection, it was likely all tents, grow equipment, and plants were removed prior. There were fresh leaves on the floor along with the plant feed and bulbs.” The carpet cleaning invoice from Procare Services notes that two bedrooms required steam cleaning, deodorising, and sanitising.
Under section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), tenants are required to ensure that the premises are not intentionally or carelessly damaged. Additionally, section 40(1)(b) prohibits tenants from using the property for unlawful purposes. The use of the property to grow cannabis constitutes a clear breach of these obligations, and the damage to the carpet resulting from the grow operation—including marks left by the equipment and the presence of plant materials—would necessitate professional cleaning.
Section 41 of the Act further holds tenants liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent. Even if third parties contributed to the damage, the tenant remains responsible for the costs incurred to address the issue.
In this case, the tenant had sublease the premises to subtenants. While the tenant argues they had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the loss, they say they were not informed or did not agree to the cost for carpet cleaning, but this does not absolve them of liability for their sub tenant breaching their obligations under the Act. The landlord is entitled to recover reasonable costs for remedial work necessary to repair damage caused by the sub tenant’s unlawful use of the property. Providing notice of the cost beforehand may have been preferable but is not a requirement for liability in this case. The key issue is that the costs incurred were directly attributable to the sub tenant’s breach and were necessary to remediate the damage.
The tenant disputes that two bedrooms required carpet cleaning, arguing that the property inspection report references only one bedroom, and the photographic evidence does not substantiate cleaning in both. However, the carpet cleaning invoice clearly states, “To inspect and steam clean, deodorise, and sanitise as required throughout 2-bedroom property. Hallway - extra room/area.” Furthermore, the inspection report and accompanying photographs confirm the presence of marks on the carpet in bedrooms 3 and 4. Prudent cleaning was necessary due to the property’s use for cannabis cultivation, which raises health and safety concerns.
The photographs also show that, despite plastic sheeting on the floors, marks were present on the carpet in the affected areas. The use of plastic sheeting does not negate the fact that equipment and activities related to cannabis cultivation caused damage to the property. Even if some stains were less visible, the presence of any contamination or residue justified the professional cleaning to ensure the property was restored to a clean and sanitary state, as expected under a tenancy agreement.
Health and safety considerations further support the landlord’s actions. Cannabis cultivation indoors can result in contamination from soil, fertilisers, or chemicals used in the process, and professional cleaning is a prudent step to address these risks. The cleaning costs were reasonable and necessary to mitigate potential health hazards and restore the premises to an acceptable standard.
While the tenant disputes the extent of the cleaning required, the property inspection report, photographic evidence, and invoice all support the landlord’s claim that professional carpet cleaning was appropriate. The cleaning was required due to damage caused by the sub tenant’s unlawful use of the premises in breach of sections 40(1)(a), 40(1)(b), and 41 of the Act. The tenant’s liability arises not only from the physical damage caused but also from the unlawful use of the property, which necessitated additional steps to address potential health and safety risks.
For these reasons, I find the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning costs of $362.25.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067859 — Cleanliness at 63 Orchard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067859 — Cleanliness at 63 Orchard Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions