What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5497849?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Pizzey and Marlise McNeil must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5497849?

Property Damage: $2,901.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,592.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497849?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13747690-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5497849?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Pizzey and Marlise McNeil must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5497849?

Property Damage: $2,901.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,592.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497849?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13747690-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 16 Devon Street, Sydenham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5497849 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497849 — net $3,572.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 May 2026	$2,592.86	Rent arrears to 25 May 2026
Cleaning: 50% of invoice	$250.00	Cleaning: 50% of invoice
Carpet replacement - 2 rooms: depreciated 33	$2,901.14	Carpet replacement - 2 rooms: depreciated 33
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,572.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,572.00

Order

Jordan Pizzey and Marlise McNeil must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $3,572.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-17577569) to Grenadier Rent Shop Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Toa and Ms Freeman represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy which ended on 25 May 2026. Background
The tenancy started on 20 May 2024, initially for a 1-year fixed term and then for a further 1-year term.
When the tenants renewed the tenancy, they told they landlord they were intending to buy a house themselves and enquired about the procedures that would apply if they wanted to end the tenancy earlier.
The tenants purchased a property. The purchase settled quickly, about 2 weeks after the contract was signed and they moved into their home on or about 23 March 2026.
The tenants advised the landlord of their plans. They were given quotes for breaking their lease, or for assigning the tenancy. Both they and the landlord tried to find replacement tenants. The landlord advertised the tenancy, at a reduced rent, but suitable tenants were not found.
There was also a suggestion that the owner of the premises would move in, but only after damaged carpets were replaced.
The tenants continued to pay rent; the last payment was made on 16 April 2026. Since then, rent arrears have accrued to the end date of the tenancy.
After the tenancy ended the landlord replaced the carpet in 2 rooms due to pet soiling. The landlord also had the premises cleaned. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy, so it is considered to have ended as of 2 April 2026? •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears, carpet replacement, and cleaning? Discussion Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy, so it is considered to have ended as of 2 April 2026?
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced 1 .
The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts. It has no general discretion to end a contract between parties. A tenancy agreement is a contract. Contracts between parties in the residential tenancy setting are binding unless the criteria in section 66(1) RTA are satisfied.
The tenants’ application does not clear the first hurdle. There was no unforeseen change in their circumstances. The decision to purchase a property is a considered decision, not something unforeseen. Indeed, they knew they were intending to purchase a property from the time they signed the renewal of the tenancy in May 2025.
Because the tenants’ application does not clear the first hurdle, the Tribunal need not consider the respective hardship of the parties – severe hardship for the tenants, (ordinary) hardship for the landlord.
The tenants raised matters of general complaint concerning the landlord’s communications with them but none of the matters raised could result in the Tribunal interfering with the terms of the contract and bringing it to an earlier end. The landlord agreed to the assignment of the tenancy but was not obliged to accept any tenant who these tenants proposed. And the landlord took all reasonable steps to assist them by advertising the tenancy and reducing the rent. That another suitable tenant was not found is unfortunate but does not enable the Tribunal to end the tenancy when the tenants want it ended.
The tenants’ application cannot succeed and must be dismissed. 1 See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears, carpet replacement, and cleaning? Rent arrears
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears to the end of the fixed term is proved by the production of rent records. The tenants accepted that the claim was mathematically correct. Cleaning
The tenants accepted that some cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy. They queried why this was not pointed out to them and why they did not have the opportunity to do the cleaning the landlord required.
At the end of the 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 2 .
This is a responsibility that is placed on the tenants. They confirmed that they could still access the premises until the tenancy ended. The reasons the landlord took no earlier action is because, if it had, it might have been seen to take possession of the premises thereby ending the tenancy. The landlord had to exercise caution as the tenancy remained current.
I have considered the photos produced in evidence, and the invoice for the cleaning work.
The landlord has proved that some additional cleaning work was required to meet the statutory standard of the premises being left reasonably clean.
The invoice contains no narration, nor does it specify the number of hours spent by the cleaner.
Often, when landlords have premises professionally cleaned, they are cleaned to a state where a new tenancy can commence, sometimes referred to as ‘motel clean’. But the RTA does not impose that standard on tenants.
In the absence of a detailed invoice with hours spent and work done, I have allowed the landlord’s claim for cleaning for 50% of the amount claimed to ensure that the tenants are not made liable for a standard of cleaning the RTA does not impose on them. 2 See section 40(1)(e) (ii)-(v) RTA) Carpet replacement
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 3 .
The tenants accepted that their cat caused damage to the carpets in the 2 affected rooms. They said that 2 dark stains in the dining room appeared gradually.
I have assessed the photos the landlord produced in evidence. I find that the carpets in the affected rooms required replacement.
That the landlord was not insured for damage caused by pets (or rather, it was excluded from the owner’s insurance policy) does not limited the tenants’ liability. Had the owner been insured, the claim would have been limited to the excess(es) the insurer applied. Often an insurer will consider each stain to be a separate event, so the excess amounts combined are greater than the claim made.
Mr Pizzey said he had done some research and found that depreciation for the carpet should be between 37.5% and 50% because carpet is considered to have an 8-year life span in residential tenancy premises.
There is no set guide to depreciation. The Inland Review rates are low, other measures much higher.
Generally, the Tribunal considers that carpet in residential tenancy premises has a lifespan of between 15 and 25 years depending on the quality of the carpet and the history of the tenancy. Premises rented to a family of 6 will depreciate faster and have more wear and tear than premises rented to a couple.
The landlord applied depreciation of 20%. That was a reasonable estimate. The carpet was 5 years old. I cannot accurately determine the quality of the damaged carpet. I have therefore erred on the side of caution and have applied depreciation of 33% based on the carpet having an estimated useful life span of 15 years. The tenants are therefore liable for $2,901.14 of the total carpet replacement cost of $4,351.71. Result
The tenants’ application is dismissed. 3 See section 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
The landlord’s applications for rent arrears, cleaning (reduced) and carpet replacement (depreciated 33%) are successful in the amount of $5,772.00 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee (the application being successful).
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenants will pay the landlord $3,572.00. Name suppression
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenants made an application for name suppression. They are not entitled to a name suppression order because their application is unsuccessful and the landlord’s application against them is successful 4 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497849 — net $3,572.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 May 2026	$2,592.86	Rent arrears to 25 May 2026
Cleaning: 50% of invoice	$250.00	Cleaning: 50% of invoice
Carpet replacement - 2 rooms: depreciated 33	$2,901.14	Carpet replacement - 2 rooms: depreciated 33
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,572.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,572.00

Order

Jordan Pizzey and Marlise McNeil must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $3,572.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-17577569) to Grenadier Rent Shop Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Toa and Ms Freeman represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy which ended on 25 May 2026. Background
The tenancy started on 20 May 2024, initially for a 1-year fixed term and then for a further 1-year term.
When the tenants renewed the tenancy, they told they landlord they were intending to buy a house themselves and enquired about the procedures that would apply if they wanted to end the tenancy earlier.
The tenants purchased a property. The purchase settled quickly, about 2 weeks after the contract was signed and they moved into their home on or about 23 March 2026.
The tenants advised the landlord of their plans. They were given quotes for breaking their lease, or for assigning the tenancy. Both they and the landlord tried to find replacement tenants. The landlord advertised the tenancy, at a reduced rent, but suitable tenants were not found.
There was also a suggestion that the owner of the premises would move in, but only after damaged carpets were replaced.
The tenants continued to pay rent; the last payment was made on 16 April 2026. Since then, rent arrears have accrued to the end date of the tenancy.
After the tenancy ended the landlord replaced the carpet in 2 rooms due to pet soiling. The landlord also had the premises cleaned. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy, so it is considered to have ended as of 2 April 2026? •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears, carpet replacement, and cleaning? Discussion Should the Tribunal reduce the term of the tenancy, so it is considered to have ended as of 2 April 2026?
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced 1 .
The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts. It has no general discretion to end a contract between parties. A tenancy agreement is a contract. Contracts between parties in the residential tenancy setting are binding unless the criteria in section 66(1) RTA are satisfied.
The tenants’ application does not clear the first hurdle. There was no unforeseen change in their circumstances. The decision to purchase a property is a considered decision, not something unforeseen. Indeed, they knew they were intending to purchase a property from the time they signed the renewal of the tenancy in May 2025.
Because the tenants’ application does not clear the first hurdle, the Tribunal need not consider the respective hardship of the parties – severe hardship for the tenants, (ordinary) hardship for the landlord.
The tenants raised matters of general complaint concerning the landlord’s communications with them but none of the matters raised could result in the Tribunal interfering with the terms of the contract and bringing it to an earlier end. The landlord agreed to the assignment of the tenancy but was not obliged to accept any tenant who these tenants proposed. And the landlord took all reasonable steps to assist them by advertising the tenancy and reducing the rent. That another suitable tenant was not found is unfortunate but does not enable the Tribunal to end the tenancy when the tenants want it ended.
The tenants’ application cannot succeed and must be dismissed. 1 See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears, carpet replacement, and cleaning? Rent arrears
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears to the end of the fixed term is proved by the production of rent records. The tenants accepted that the claim was mathematically correct. Cleaning
The tenants accepted that some cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy. They queried why this was not pointed out to them and why they did not have the opportunity to do the cleaning the landlord required.
At the end of the 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 2 .
This is a responsibility that is placed on the tenants. They confirmed that they could still access the premises until the tenancy ended. The reasons the landlord took no earlier action is because, if it had, it might have been seen to take possession of the premises thereby ending the tenancy. The landlord had to exercise caution as the tenancy remained current.
I have considered the photos produced in evidence, and the invoice for the cleaning work.
The landlord has proved that some additional cleaning work was required to meet the statutory standard of the premises being left reasonably clean.
The invoice contains no narration, nor does it specify the number of hours spent by the cleaner.
Often, when landlords have premises professionally cleaned, they are cleaned to a state where a new tenancy can commence, sometimes referred to as ‘motel clean’. But the RTA does not impose that standard on tenants.
In the absence of a detailed invoice with hours spent and work done, I have allowed the landlord’s claim for cleaning for 50% of the amount claimed to ensure that the tenants are not made liable for a standard of cleaning the RTA does not impose on them. 2 See section 40(1)(e) (ii)-(v) RTA) Carpet replacement
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 3 .
The tenants accepted that their cat caused damage to the carpets in the 2 affected rooms. They said that 2 dark stains in the dining room appeared gradually.
I have assessed the photos the landlord produced in evidence. I find that the carpets in the affected rooms required replacement.
That the landlord was not insured for damage caused by pets (or rather, it was excluded from the owner’s insurance policy) does not limited the tenants’ liability. Had the owner been insured, the claim would have been limited to the excess(es) the insurer applied. Often an insurer will consider each stain to be a separate event, so the excess amounts combined are greater than the claim made.
Mr Pizzey said he had done some research and found that depreciation for the carpet should be between 37.5% and 50% because carpet is considered to have an 8-year life span in residential tenancy premises.
There is no set guide to depreciation. The Inland Review rates are low, other measures much higher.
Generally, the Tribunal considers that carpet in residential tenancy premises has a lifespan of between 15 and 25 years depending on the quality of the carpet and the history of the tenancy. Premises rented to a family of 6 will depreciate faster and have more wear and tear than premises rented to a couple.
The landlord applied depreciation of 20%. That was a reasonable estimate. The carpet was 5 years old. I cannot accurately determine the quality of the damaged carpet. I have therefore erred on the side of caution and have applied depreciation of 33% based on the carpet having an estimated useful life span of 15 years. The tenants are therefore liable for $2,901.14 of the total carpet replacement cost of $4,351.71. Result
The tenants’ application is dismissed. 3 See section 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
The landlord’s applications for rent arrears, cleaning (reduced) and carpet replacement (depreciated 33%) are successful in the amount of $5,772.00 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee (the application being successful).
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenants will pay the landlord $3,572.00. Name suppression
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenants made an application for name suppression. They are not entitled to a name suppression order because their application is unsuccessful and the landlord’s application against them is successful 4 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497849 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 16 Devon Street, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497849 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 16 Devon Street, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions