What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226516?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Lorigan must pay Katrina Bunn $162.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5226516?

Compensation: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226516?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11944378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226516?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Lorigan must pay Katrina Bunn $162.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5226516?

Compensation: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226516?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11944378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5226516 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226516 — net $162.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$135.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$162.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$162.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord claims the cost of carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy on 1 April 2025.

The Tribunal made an order on 15 April 2025 for the bond to be paid to the tenant and the landlord to pay the tenant $1,400. The landlord indicated then that she had end of tenancy claims to make against the tenant. The Tribunal therefore stayed enforcement of the order to pay the $1,400. If the landlord filed an application the stay would continue until the hearing of the that application.

The landlord misunderstood the order, and she has paid the $1,400 to the tenant in full. The landlord’s claim if for $270.16 being the cost of professionally cleaning the carpet throughout the two-bedroom unit.

The tenant was obliged to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The questions therefore for me are as follows. Was the carpet left reasonably clean? If not, what was required to clean it to that standard? What amount of compensation should be awarded for that cleaning?

The landlord produced photographs showing the carpet in the living area at the start of the tenancy, at the end of the tenancy and after it was professionally cleaned. They show the carpet to be reasonably clean at the start, stained in various places at the end and reasonably clean after the professional cleaning.

The landlord said that as well as the stains, the carpet in the living area was dirty. She referred to the fact that the tenant had a dog in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant said that she vacuumed the carpet before she vacated the premises.

There was a condition report attached to the tenancy agreement signed by the parties that does not refer to stains on the carpet.

The tenant produced some photographs and a video on her mobile telephone, but they did not show much of the living area carpet and so they were of little evidential value.

The tenant said that when she moved into the premises, the carpets were damp from professional cleaning. When they dried, she said that stains appeared which she covered with mats. She did not notify the landlord of the stains.

The tenant called a witness, Adam Fleck, who helped her move in and who saw the carpet the following day. He confirmed the tenant’s evidence about the condition of the carpet at that time and he pointed out that the stains can be seen on the landlord’s outgoing photographs.

Those identified stains appear as two sizeable areas outlined as though there had been two large spillages or leaks onto the carpet which had dried leaving a line around the perimeter of them. The landlord was non-committal as to what they were.

The tenant also said that she was not given an opportunity to come back and clean the carpet herself. She said that she was a cleaner and she had access to professional carpet cleaning equipment. In a message to the landlord at the time she said, l “I don’t really want you to pay a professional (to do) a job that I can do out of my own time and money”. I have added the words in brackets.

The landlord has produced an invoice from the carpet cleaners describing what was done. The areas of the living area and the rest of the carpet in the unit are roughly equal.

After considering all the evidence I find that the living area carpet was not left reasonably clean and that it needed professional cleaning to make it so. I am not satisfied that there was extensive staining at the start of the tenancy. The tenant had the opportunity to take photographs of the staining and to inform the landlord of it. She did neither which weighs against her evidence. She also offered to clean the carpet and said nothing at that time about pre-existing stains.

There was not enough evidence that the carpet elsewhere in the unit needed professional cleaning and so it is not reasonable to award the full cost of the carpet cleaning against the tenant. I have therefore warded half the cost.

The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

I have not ordered name suppression. There was no name suppression in the previous order, and I see no reason to order it now.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226516 — net $162.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$135.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$162.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$162.00

Order

Tracey Lorigan must pay Katrina Bunn $162.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the cost of carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy on 1 April 2025.
The Tribunal made an order on 15 April 2025 for the bond to be paid to the tenant and the landlord to pay the tenant $1,400. The landlord indicated then that she had end of tenancy claims to make against the tenant. The Tribunal therefore stayed enforcement of the order to pay the $1,400. If the landlord filed an application the stay would continue until the hearing of the that application.
The landlord misunderstood the order, and she has paid the $1,400 to the tenant in full. The landlord’s claim if for $270.16 being the cost of professionally cleaning the carpet throughout the two-bedroom unit.
The tenant was obliged to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The questions therefore for me are as follows. Was the carpet left reasonably clean? If not, what was required to clean it to that standard? What amount of compensation should be awarded for that cleaning?
The landlord produced photographs showing the carpet in the living area at the start of the tenancy, at the end of the tenancy and after it was professionally cleaned. They show the carpet to be reasonably clean at the start, stained in various places at the end and reasonably clean after the professional cleaning.
The landlord said that as well as the stains, the carpet in the living area was dirty. She referred to the fact that the tenant had a dog in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant said that she vacuumed the carpet before she vacated the premises.
There was a condition report attached to the tenancy agreement signed by the parties that does not refer to stains on the carpet.
The tenant produced some photographs and a video on her mobile telephone, but they did not show much of the living area carpet and so they were of little evidential value.
The tenant said that when she moved into the premises, the carpets were damp from professional cleaning. When they dried, she said that stains appeared which she covered with mats. She did not notify the landlord of the stains.
The tenant called a witness, Adam Fleck, who helped her move in and who saw the carpet the following day. He confirmed the tenant’s evidence about the condition of the carpet at that time and he pointed out that the stains can be seen on the landlord’s outgoing photographs.
Those identified stains appear as two sizeable areas outlined as though there had been two large spillages or leaks onto the carpet which had dried leaving a line around the perimeter of them. The landlord was non-committal as to what they were.
The tenant also said that she was not given an opportunity to come back and clean the carpet herself. She said that she was a cleaner and she had access to professional carpet cleaning equipment. In a message to the landlord at the time she said, l “I don’t really want you to pay a professional (to do) a job that I can do out of my own time and money”. I have added the words in brackets.
The landlord has produced an invoice from the carpet cleaners describing what was done. The areas of the living area and the rest of the carpet in the unit are roughly equal.
After considering all the evidence I find that the living area carpet was not left reasonably clean and that it needed professional cleaning to make it so. I am not satisfied that there was extensive staining at the start of the tenancy. The tenant had the opportunity to take photographs of the staining and to inform the landlord of it. She did neither which weighs against her evidence. She also offered to clean the carpet and said nothing at that time about pre-existing stains.
There was not enough evidence that the carpet elsewhere in the unit needed professional cleaning and so it is not reasonable to award the full cost of the carpet cleaning against the tenant. I have therefore warded half the cost.
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.
I have not ordered name suppression. There was no name suppression in the previous order, and I see no reason to order it now.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226516 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226516 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions