What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427248?

The tribunal order states: Dazie Property Limited must pay Natashia Donna Wilson and Terry Tata the sum

How much money was awarded in case 5427248?

Cleaning: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,105.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $188.47 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139971-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427248?

The tribunal order states: Dazie Property Limited must pay Natashia Donna Wilson and Terry Tata the sum

How much money was awarded in case 5427248?

Cleaning: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,105.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $188.47 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13139971-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

184 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427248 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427248. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,105.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$1,134.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: dishwasher	$188.47	Repairs: dishwasher
Repairs: painting	$1,184.50	e submitted for touching up is reasonable and so the tenants are ordered to pay $1,184.50 for the painting. ___________________________________________________…

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427248. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,105.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$1,134.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: dishwasher	$188.47	Repairs: dishwasher
Repairs: painting	$1,184.50	e submitted for touching up is reasonable and so the tenants are ordered to pay $1,184.50 for the painting. ___________________________________________________…

Order

Dazie Property Limited must pay Natashia Donna Wilson and Terry Tata the sum of $368.03 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via video. Mr and Ms Briscoe attended on behalf of the landlord.
The parties had a residential tenancy agreement that began on 14 December 2020.
The tenancy ended on 4 October 2025 as a result of the tenants’ giving notice.
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond of $3,980.00 which was paid to the landlords at the end of the tenancy, the tenants having signed the refund of bond form to the landlords.
The landlord has cross-applied for $22,751.35 costs at the end of the tenancy comprised as follows: a. Cleaning $705 invoice b. Cleaning costs $6,000 for the landlords’ time c. Carpet cleaning $1,134 d. Insurance excess costs for the carpet $4,866 e. Carpet for one room $1,015 f. Fisher & Paykel Dishwasher repairs $376.94 g. Painting $3,500 h. Curtains and blinds Master bedroom = $1,654.75 Second bedroom blind = $949.66 i. Mortgage costs = $2,550 Total = $22,751.35
On 7 October, three days after the tenancy ended, the exit inspection took place, with Mr Tata attending on behalf the tenants. Ms Wilson was unable to attend because she was recovering from surgery.
Following that, the tenants signed the release of bond form.
The landlords then placed the property on the market.
The tenants are upset that the landlords have said that the property was disgusting. They said that they felt pressured to sign the release of bond form and it was signed “under duress”. They say that when Mr Tata attended the final inspection, the landlord, Mr Briscoe shouted at Mr Tata. Mr Briscoe says that the shouting was initiated by Mr Tata. There is no dispute that the exchange was heated.
I do not need to find whether one party was more to blame for the exchange that happened after the tenancy had ended. I need to decide whether the landlord had a lawful claim over the bond. The starting point is that the bond belongs to the tenant unless or until the landlord establishes a lawful claim.
The Tribunal must determine the dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. (See section 85(2)).
The onus is on each party to establish their claims.
There is no dispute that the tenants paid a bond of $3,980. That fact is established. In the absence of a claim from the landlord they would be entitled to have that reimbursed.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the facts to establish that they are entitled to the amounts they are claiming.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning costs claimed?

The landlords have claimed $6,705 for cleaning. That is made up of an invoice for $705 from a cleaner, plus $6,000, representing 150 hours at $40 an hour of the landlords’ own time.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants say that they left the property in excellent clean order.
The landlords say that the house did not seem to have been cleaned at all, the carpet was severely stained, damaged and smelled dreadful, and there was damage to walls and doors, and window furnishings. They say that every surface in the house was sticky and grimy.
The landlords say that they had to hold their noses when opening the dishdrawers. The oven tray that sat beside the freezer was covered in cat fur.
They describe the rubbish bin drawers as “disgusting”. They spent hours scrubbing and disinfecting. They said the oil and grease stains on the cupboards, on the walls and under the benches and drawers in the kitchen and pantry were “revolting”.
The landlords say there were cat biscuits, kitty litter and cat faeces under the washing machine and dryer in the laundry. The wall in the downstairs bathroom was stained yellow with urine. There were faeces on the toilets where the seats attach to the base and behind the seats. The bathroom drawers were described as filthy, full of hair, dirt, and grime. The extractor fans were clogged and the drains blocked.
They say that the amount of cat hair through the radiators, the carpet and along the edges of the carpet meant Ms Briscoe was constantly emptying the vacuum. It was like the house had not been cleaned in months and months. There were still toiletries in the drawer. The toilet had not been cleaned.
In a text before the final inspection, on Sunday 5 October, Mr Tata had sent a text that said, “Tash and myself are more than happy to sign lease over to you and use what you need to do with it and if any left then you can give to us.” They say that by “lease” meant the bond. Therefore, the landlords had assumed before the inspection that they would be able to use the bond for cleaning.
I agree that is a reasonable interpretation of that text.
The landlords had not been aware that the tenants had a dog. They were aware that they had cats.
The tenants say that at the end of the tenancy, Ms Wilson had just undergone surgery, and they had just bought a new home, meaning they were busy and did not have time to complete everything.
According to the tenants, every inspection was signed off as immaculate. When there were threats of replacement of carpet, they decided to sign the bond over. They felt intimidated because the landlord is a property lawyer.
The tenants say that they looked after the house as though it was their own and there had never been any complaints. They say that it was left in immaculate condition.
The landlords dispute this. At the inspection at the end of 2024 the landlords had noted that the house was no longer as clean as it used to be. They spoke to the tenants about the state of the house. They said it needed more cleaning and suggested getting a cleaner if they did not have the time to do it themselves. Ms Wilson said that was a good idea and Ms Briscoe agreed to send her the details of a cleaner. Text messages showed that this occurred.
The tenants say that any smell was likely from a leak there had been from one of the bathrooms into their bedroom below. Shortly before the tenancy ended, they had reported this, and it had been repaired. It related to the toilet and so they say that is the likely cause of the smell. The tenants have not brought any claim about that.
The landlord provided photographs of cleaning required. There were no photos of the premises has a whole. The photographs were closer views of areas requiring cleaning.
The landlords also provided an email from their cleaner which said: The house and the carpet smelled very strongly of dog and there were also yellow spray marks on the walls from the dog. They clearly didn't do the end of tenant clean or just keep on top of everyday cleaning maintenance. I came into clean for them and the amount of built-up Mold was so bad, All the Surfaces in the kitchen were so sticky so dirty it was clear as day it had not been cleaned in a very long time.
The photographs do not show an “immaculate” property as claimed by the tenants. The tenants are not required to leave the premises in immaculate condition, but they are required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Based on the photographs provided, the description given by the landlords and the description provided by their cleaner, the landlords have established that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
No invoice from the cleaner was provided, but the landlords say that they paid $705 for 23.5 hours at $30.00 an hour. There is a statement from the cleaner regarding the state of the property and this is referred to below. The sum of $705 is not unreasonable and so that amount is ordered.
I also accept that some further cleaning was required. From the photographs provided it does not appear that any cleaning had been done at the end of the tenancy and that during the tenancy there were areas that had been neglected. There was clearly a thick layer of grease on the range hood and areas that had a build-up of grime. The fridge had not been emptied and there was debris remaining where furniture had been.
The landlord said that it took hours to scrape off some sticky areas where the tenants had put tape down on the garage floor. He said it took about 4 days to scrape this off in minute strips with a paint scraper. At the $40 an hour claimed, that amounts to $1280.
The photographs show some tape on the concrete floor of the garage.
The tenants do not dispute that they had placed sticky tape on the garage floor. They say that it could have been lifted in one attempt. It would have taken then an hour. They say it is polythene tape and you just use polythene tape to lift it off. They acknowledge that they forgot to take the tape off before they left the property.
The landlords decided to place the property on the market. The tenants are not responsible for the extra efforts that are required in getting a property ready for sale.
The claim for $6,000 for cleaning is for 150 hours at $40 an hour for the landlords’ time. The amount claimed by the landlord is extraordinarily high. The landlords have not established that the premises required 150 hours of cleaning in order to be “reasonably clean and tidy”.
It is not reasonable that the tenants pay the landlord 32 hours of his time to scrape some sticky marks on the garage floor. I do not accept that spending four days removing stickiness was an expeditious or sensible solution to the issue.
I allow a further $200 for that matter.
I also order a further $200 for extra cleaning. That is based on $25.00 an hour for 8 hours. The total awarded for cleaning, including the paid cleaner is therefore $1,105.

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning and carpet replacement?

The next question is whether the tenants are responsible for $1,134 for cleaning carpet that the landlord decided to replace.
There is an itemised in an invoice from JAE Hutt Valley: 22/10/2025 - Steam Clean Carpet Pre sprayed and cleaned entire house; large lounge/dining, large second lounge, entry, 2 hallways, 5 bedrooms and wardrobes (4 doubles and 1 walk in) and 17 stairs over 2 flights Recleaned main lounge/dining with Solvent Spot 22/10/2025 - Deodorizing Treatment 22/10/2025 - Treated Stains throughout- including treating the lounge a second time with a special treatment
The landlords provided an email from a real estate agent saying: When I first attended 184 Dowse Drive to carry out an appraisal, the condition of the property, especially carpet, was notably poor. Upon entering the home, there was a strong and persistent odour of dog and urine throughout, and the carpet was visibly dirty and stained. This was not a minor or isolated issue, but an immediate and overwhelming smell present from the doorway. I later returned to the property after the carpet had been professionally cleaned, with some areas cleaned twice in an attempt to remediate the issue. Despite this, the first and dominant smell when opening the door remained that of dog, indicating that the odour had penetrated the carpet and underlay and could not be removed through standard professional cleaning.
Photographs from the landlord show stains on the underside of the carpet, some small discoloured yellow/brown patches on the stairs, including the paint on the wall, some darker patches in other areas.
The landlord also provided a report from JAEs saying they had cleaned and deodorised the carpets and there was a large volume of urine present. They said that the carpets were not restorable and should be replaced.
In the ordinary course of events, tenants are not required to clean carpets at the end of a tenancy. However, sometimes carpet cleaning is required because of the activities of the tenant.
The tenants say that the landlord knew that they had a dog. The tenants deny that they are responsible for the smell in the carpet, saying that if there was any smell, it was as a result of the leak.
Under the tenancy agreement, the tenants could have pets with the approval of the landlord. The landlord had approved a cat, but not a dog. The landlords say that the tenants hid the fact they had a dog from us and made sure there was no evidence of a dog on the property when we did our inspections or when tradespeople came over.
The landlords say that when arranging for the repair of the garage door on 22 January 2025 Natashia inadvertently texted Lizzie to say she would “have Rocky at work”. When Lizzie asked Natashia whether that text was meant for her, she replied saying Rocky was their cat and she was taking it to the vet.
However, the landlords found evidence of Rocky on Terry’s public facebook page. These are dated 23 August 2025 and say, “happy 1 year my ROCKY”. These photos show Rocky inside at the premises.
The texts and screenshots were provided to the Tribunal.
The landlords have established that the tenants had a dog at the premises and that they had not sought the approval of the landlord.
However, the issues are: a. Did the carpets require cleaning? b. What degree of cleaning was required? c. Were the carpets damaged? d. What is reasonable compensation?
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that there were some marks and stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy and it was reasonable that the carpets were cleaned at the tenants’ expense.
Although the tenants dispute that they were responsible for the smell in the premises, based on the statements of the landlords, the cleaner, the real estate agent and the carpet cleaner, I find it is more likely than not that any smell was not solely caused by the leak in the floor that went into the bedroom. The evidence of marks was in several rooms, including yellow/brown marks on the carpet in the corners on the stairs. The real estate agent described the smell as being throughout the house.
I am surprised that the carpet cleaner went ahead and cleaned the carpets to the degree that they did, given their recommendation that the carpets should be replaced. I would have expected a professional carpet cleaner to make an assessment of the state of the carpet and the likely prospects of successfully deodorising the carpet before embarking on over a $1,000 worth of cleaning and then recommending replacement.
Because the carpets were ultimately replaced, I have considered the smell along with the claim for damage.

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

The landlords also point to a couple of areas on the carpet where there had been some damage from scratching.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
On viewing the photographs, the areas of fraying do not appear to be fair wear and tear. They are consistent with someone or something pulling at the threads.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s insurance excess is $750. 1
I accept that the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear.
The total amounts claimed for the carpet is $7,015, comprised as follows: a. Carpet cleaning $1,134 b. Insurance excess costs for the carpet $4,866 c. Carpet for one room $1,015. 1 Section 13A(4) provides that f anything changes so that the information that was included in the tenancy agreement or is no longer correct, the landlord must provide the correct information in writing to the tenant within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change.
The evidence of the insurance excess is an invoice from Carpet Court saying “insurance excess”. There is no evidence of correspondence from the insurers regarding the assessment or amount being paid out. I would have expected the figure not covered by the insurers to have been a multiple of $750, 2 given that is the excess according to the tenancy agreement.
However, even with that information, I would have difficulty ordering the amounts claimed. As explained at the hearing, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
At the end of the tenancy the carpet was 9 years old. The landlord has had the use of the carpet for that time. The tenants are not responsible for the full replacement cost, even if the damage were deemed to be intentional.
According to the IRD General Depreciation rates, the expected life of a carpet in a rental property is 8 years. It no longer had any book value at the end of the tenancy.
That said, I accept that the carpet was in reasonably good condition at the start of the tenancy, and but for the actions of the tenants, it probably would not have needed replacement. The tenants should contribute something and so it is reasonable that they pay $1,134.00 for the carpet cleaning that was undertaken in an effort to eliminate the smell. Dishwasher
The next item is the dish drawers. The landlords claim $376.94 for repairs. They say the dish drawers had broken trays, rinse aid dispensers and a seal and smelled “absolutely revolting”. The prongs were broken, and the machines needed a full-on clean. They had to get the machines serviced and repaired at a cost of $376.94 ($139.00 for diagnostics and $237.94 for parts and labour).
The tenants say that this was fair wear and tear.
Looked at overall, this is not entirely “fair” wear and tear. I find it is more likely than not that at least some of this damage was caused by the tenants’ careless actions. Therefore, they must contribute half of the costs of the repairs, which comes to $188.47. 2 Insurers usually assess claims per room and charge and excess for each room. Painting
The landlords claim $3,500 for painting. The landlords had a painter attend to everything as well as some other touch ups. They said his invoice was $7,532.50. They seek a contribution of $3,500.
The landlords say that there was damage to the wall in one bedroom that the tenants had said they would fix before they left, but did not.
They say they needed to get all of the door frames and many of the doors repainted due to cat damage, and many of the walls also needed to be repainted due to scrapes, holes, and other damage. The tenants’ cat scratched the windowsill in the ensuite. This was noted in an inspection. The tenants agreed they would fix this before they left the house, but they did not. The windowsill in the upstairs bedroom also had cat scratches.
The landlords say that the heavy duty hooks that had been placed on the wall in the garage for garden tools had been ripped from the walls, and that heavy weights that had leaned against the walls had dented the walls. They had to have the south wall replastered and the walls painted.
The invoice submitted was from DO Decorator Ltd, for “touch up hours 16 x $55” and material $150. The total invoice was for $1,184.50 including GST.
The tenants say that they unscrewed some hooks in the garage wall and forgot to put them back. They also say that the marks are fair wear and tear.
The photos show that there were two hooks missing.
The photos show scratches to the door frames, and areas where hooks have been removed. The wall of one room has three large patches as well as several yellow marks on the walls. There are two small patches on another wall, a gouge in another wall, and paint scratched off two doors. Paint has also come off the wall in the stairwell. There is a large, discoloured area.
There are a lot of stains on the plywood shelves in the garage but I consider that is fair wear and tear. The porous nature of the material makes it difficult to keep unmarked.
With the exception of the shelves, I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The question is how much the tenants should contribute to the repainting. This is not a situation of multiple holes requiring plastering or re- gibbing. With the exception of one wall, each of the items of damage is minor.
However, some repair and repainting was required. That often means that an entire wall or room must be repainted in order so that the repair is not visible.
The invoice submitted for touching up is reasonable and so the tenants are ordered to pay $1,184.50 for the painting. Curtains and blinds
The landlords claim reimbursement of the following: a. Master bedroom = $1,654.75 b. Second bedroom blind = $949.66.
A quote for replacement curtains and blinds for the entire house was provided.
They say the blind in the second downstairs bedroom had gone mouldy on the inside, (not the side closest to the window). They suspect this was because the door to the room was always closed and the blind was always down. The cupboard doors in that room also had mould on them.
They landlords say that the curtain in the master bedroom was ripped and covered in make-up. The curtains were not repairable and had to be replaced. Because they matched the Roman blind, that had to be replaced too.
The tenants say that any mould in the second bedroom was not because of their actions. They said that there was condensation. They say that the curtains were at the end of their life, and that they were replaced because the house was going on the market.
I find that the landlords have not proved that the mould in the second bedroom was causes by the tenants’ careless or intentional act. Mould sometimes appears in homes for a number of reasons.
The curtain in the master bedroom has sustained some damage that appears to be more than fair wear and tear. However, the landlords say the curtains were 9 years old. Under the IRD General Depreciation rates, curtains and blinds have a life expectancy of 8 years old. Therefore, it is not reasonable that the tenants pay for replacement curtains and blinds. In addition, the landlords decided to replace all curtains and blinds for the house in any event. It is not reasonable that the tenants contribute to the cost of refurbishment for sale. Are the tenants responsible for the landlord’s mortgage payments pending settlement?
The landlords say that they had to defer the settlement of their house sale because they were waiting for replacement carpets. They had a settlement date of 4 December 2025 but had to defer to 23 December 2025 because of the unavailability of the carpet installers. They seek approximately $850 a week in mortgage repayments, rates, insurance and power costs.
They explained there were no penalties incurred for late settlement, but they had to continue paying their mortgage for a further 19 days.
When an individual chooses to be a landowner, they have certain responsibilities. Any debt that the landlord has on a property is of no concern to the tenant of that property. The tenants are not responsible for the landlord’s debt or the rates or insurance on a property.
In any event, the landlords provided no evidence of: a. the date the carpet was ordered b. correspondence about a delay in it arriving c. an original date of settlement d. correspondence of a deferred settlement e. evidence of interest payments on a mortgage.
The landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for any outgoings on the premises following the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Neither party has had substantial success and so there is no order for the refund of the filing fee and no orders for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427248 — Cleanliness at 184 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427248 — Cleanliness at 184 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning costs claimed?

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning and carpet replacement?

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning costs claimed?

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning and carpet replacement?

Is the tenant responsible for any damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions