Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5416048 — Cleanliness at 2/21 Blakes Road, Belfast, Christchurch 8051
Published 23 April 2026 · Application 5416048
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,080.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,680.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $430.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Outside work | $250.00 | Outside work | |
| Ranch slider doors | $1,200.00 | Ranch slider doors | |
| Compensation: Dishwasher | $200.00 | Dishwasher | |
| Total award | $1,880.00 | $200.00 | |
| Net award | $1,680.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,800.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,680.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5416048 — net $1,680.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $430.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Outside work
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Outside work
Ranch slider doors
- Amount
- $1,200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Ranch slider doors
Compensation: Dishwasher
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Dishwasher
Total award
Landlord $1,880.00 · Tenant $200.00
Net award
Landlord $1,680.00
Bond
Landlord $2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,680.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Adriana Rochelle Rossiter to pay Christchurch Property Limited as Agent for PP Trust Limited $1,680.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-17466152) immediately apportioned as follows: Christchurch Property Limited as Agent for PP Trust Limited: $1,680.00 Adriana Rochelle Rossiter: $1,120.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant has applied for compensation for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
- The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the premises and cleaning following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This tenancy began in May 2024 and ended in October 2025.
- The premises were built in 2021, and the landlord’s owners lived in them until the tenancy began.
- The landlord employed a property manager, Xclusive Property Management (Xclusive) for the duration of the tenancy.
- At the end of the tenancy Xclusive conducted a final inspection of the premises and reported to the landlord that the premises had been left in a reasonable condition and suggested some cleaning to ready them for the next tenant.
- The landlord was unhappy with Xclusive’s report and believed that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and that there was damage to them that was the tenant’s responsibility.
- The landlord then dismissed Xclusive and appointed Christchurch Property Limited as its agent to deal with the landlord’s end of tenancy claims. The Tenant’s Claims
- There was an infestation of mice in the premises in about August 2024. The landlord responded by putting down some bait. The tenant claims compensation due to the noise and unpleasantness of the infestation.
- There is no evidence that it was a breach of the landlord’s obligations that caused the infestation and so this claim must be dismissed. I note that it was not due to any fault of the tenant either.
- The tenant says that the dishwasher stopped working in June 2025 and that it was not repaired during the tenancy. The tenant reported it to Xclusive who in turn reported it to the landlord. All this is verified in the documents.
- Landlords have an obligation to provide and keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The dishwasher was provided with the premises and so the landlord had an obligation to repair it within a reasonable time which it failed to do.
- The tenant was without the use of the dishwasher for approximately four months, and she is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience that caused her. I accept that a dishwasher makes washing the dishes less onerous. I have assessed that at $200 and made an award. Landlord’s Claims Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- 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.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. Claims Carpet
- The landlord says that the carpet throughout the premises was contaminated by dog urine and must be replaced. It also claims that flooring in the kitchen/dinning area has been damaged by the tenant and it too must be replaced. It claims six insurance excesses for the six rooms/areas affected.
- The tenant denies that her dog, a French bulldog, urinated indoors. She says that when she was not in the house, the dog was kept in a crate and when she was in the house, a door was always open for the dog to go outside to toilet.
- The carpet was professionally cleaned when the tenancy ended but the landlord employed another carpet cleaner who cleaned it again. He produced a report stating that there was an odour of urine from the carpet and that testing with UV light and with a probe confirmed the presence of urine in the carpet. He said that it would remain to be seen whether the cleaning remedied the problem or whether carpet would need replacing.
- There was no direct evidence from the carpet cleaner, and he had not returned to the premises to assess the state of the carpet. One reason for adjourning the hearing was to allow him to return to the premises to make the assessment.
- He has now done so, and his report confirms that urine salts remain in the carpet in some discreet areas of the premises. He says that the carpet “may require specialist treatment or replacement depending on the extent of penetration into the underlay.” He notes that the current tenants have no complaint about the carpet.
- This evidence does not prove that the carpet needs replacing. The fact that the current tenants have no concerns about the carpet suggests that the carpet cleaning has been effective to resolve the problem. There may be some residual signs of the contamination is a few areas, but they are not resulting in any odour or staining.
- It follows that there is no basis for an award based on replacing the carpet for further treatment. But I am satisfied that the carpet needed the further cleaning that was done and so I have awarded the cost of that in full.
- As to the kitchen/dining room flooring the nature of the damage that the landlord relies on does not strike me as tenant damage. There are some gaps between the planks and some lifting. The landlord did not offer any mechanism by which the tenant could have caused these things. I therefore dismiss the claim for damage to the flooring in its entirety. Kitchen Benchtop
- The landlord’s photographs show some form of irregularity to the top edge of the kitchen bench near the oven. If is difficult to see exactly what it is from the photographs. Possibly it is a chip. It is minor. In fact, it could possibly be described as miniscule. The tenant says that she knows nothing about it including its existence.
- Arguably the damage is not beyond fair wear and tear. Stone benchtops are not immune from damage during ordinary use. Possibly the damage was pre- existing but wasn’t noticed. In any case, in my view it falls within the rule that the law does not concern itself with trifles. At most this is trifling damage, and it does not warrant any award. Gate
- The photographs show some damage, possibly scratches, to an outside gate. The landlord says that were caused by the tenant’s dog. The tenant denies that.
- The tenant’s dog is small, and the damaged area appears to be higher than the dog could reach. I note that Xclusive identified it as tenant damage but that does not prove that it is such. I note as well that other areas of fencing made from a similar material appear to be in worn condition.
- I am not satisfied from the evidence that the damage was caused carelessly by the tenant or her dog and so I dismiss this claim. Ranch Sliders
- The landlords claim the cost of rectifying damage to three ranch slider doors that have been scratched. They require sanding and recoating on the outside and some touch ups on the inside. The landlords say that the tenant’s dog caused the damage by scratching at the doors. The tenant denies that and says that a door would always be open for the dog and so it would have no need to scratch.
- There is also the point that this damage is not mentioned anywhere in the inspection reports during or at the end of the tenancy. Nor is it mentioned in landlord’s email to Xclusive dated 30 October 2025. Nor is it shown in any of Xclusive’s photographs taken during or at the end of the tenancy. I note though that in many of those photographs such damage would be difficult to see due to the lighting and distance.
- But the landlord’s end of tenancy photographs do show the damage clearly and the most likely cause of it is from the dog scratching at the doors. Most of the damage is to the outside of the doors. There was some damage to the doors from contractors who replaced the glass but that was of a different kind.
- Despite having some misgivings, I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and therefore she is liable for it. The landlord claims three insurance excesses amounting in total to $2250. The cost of repairing the damage exceeds that.
- There is no evidence that the tenant caused the damage intentionally. The fact that Exclusive did not identify the damage suggests that it was not obvious, perhaps because it occurred gradually. Therefore, the landlord is limited to recovering the insurance excesses.
- The landlord is not entitled to recover an excess of $750 for each of the doors. The tenancy agreement notes an excess of $400 and the landlord is bound by that. There were three separate events of damage and so I have awarded $1,200 for the door damage. Outside Work
- The landlord claims the cost of outdoor work on the sum of $538.17 based on an invoice from PD Construction Limited. That company is owned by the landlord’s owners and so there is a certain air of unreality about it. It was the owners themselves who did the work.
- There was a bare patch of grass at the end of the tenancy, some plants were missing, some dog droppings to clean up, rubbish in the red bin and general tidying.
- The tenant said that she left the garden in a better condition than she found it. There is some truth in that. The lawn was patchy at the start of the tenancy and there were some weeds. But the bare patch left at the end of the tenancy goes beyond that and should have been remedied.
- The tenant also takes responsibility for six plants that died due to the dog. The landlord claims for more plants but I accept that plants do die from natural causes from time to time and so I limit the tenant’s liability to the six admitted victims.
- I accept that there was some other tidying needed and I assess the total compensation due at $250. Filing Fees
- I make no award of the filing fees. Suppression
- There is no compelling reason to grant name suppression and so I decline to do so.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s35, s46
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5416048?
The tribunal order states: Adriana Rochelle Rossiter to pay Christchurch Property Limited as Agent for PP
How much money was awarded in case 5416048?
Cleaning: $430.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Dishwasher: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Outside Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Doors: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416048?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416048?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13477445-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.