Tenancy Tribunal Decision on Rent Arrears and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Manukau decided on a case involving rent arrears, cleaning costs, repairs, and a power reconnection fee. The Tribunal found the tenant responsible for rent arrears and certain repairs but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for rent arrears and certain damages but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must pay rent on time as agreed in their tenancy agreement. It also requires the tenant to keep the rental property reasonably clean and tidy, and to notify the landlord promptly about any damage or needed repairs.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled on rent arrears, cleaning costs, repairs, and a power reconnection fee.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Manukau ruled on a case involving rent arrears, cleaning costs, repairs, and a power reconnection fee. The Tribunal found the tenant responsible for rent arrears and certain repairs but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 1
[2026] NZTT 5477409, 5473137
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MANUKAU | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI MANUKAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. Both parties names are suppressed.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,670.00 ([Bond number suppressed]BN- 00037734) immediately apportioned as follows:
Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears to 28/02/2026 $191.43 Cleaning $200.00 Carpet: Excess x2 $800.00 Repairs: Walls $100.00 Total award $1,291.43 Bond $1,291.43 $1,388.57
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The tenancy ended at the conclusion of the fixed term on 28/02/2026.
3. The applicant seeks:
a) $191.43 in rent arrears to the end of the tenancy;
b) $650, comprising $450 for damage repairs and $200 for cleaning;
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 2
c) $800 for two separate [NAME] excesses relating to carpet replacement; and
d) $304.75 for a power reconnection fee.
Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?
4. The landlord has provided rent records showing that $191.43 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have also acknowledged that this amount is their responsibility.
5. I am satisfied that the rent records are accurate and that the arrears are owing. The claim for rent arrears is therefore awarded.
Are the respondents liable for the cleaning costs?
6. The landlord has provided evidence showing that the property was, in large part, left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, there were deficiencies in the standard of cleaning. These included soap scum and grime that had accumulated in the shower and bath areas, and dust that had not been removed from an extractor fan.
7. These are relatively minor matters. However, the landlord has claimed only the modest sum of $200 for rectifying them. I am satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred as a result of the tenants' breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires tenants to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
8. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning costs of $200 is awarded.
Are the tenants liable for the repair invoices?
9. The landlord seeks compensation for repairs relating to hooks that were left attached to the walls.
10. The quotation provided states that one wall may require repainting and notes that removing the hooks was likely to cause damage. I am satisfied that some damage was likely to occur as a result of removing the hooks. However, the landlord has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the full extent of the claimed damage actually occurred.
11. I note that the invoice refers to damage that may arise when the hooks are removed. At the time the invoice was prepared, the work had not yet been undertaken and any damage remained hypothetical rather than established. The invoice was therefore based, at least in part, on an assumption that damage would occur.
12. In those circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenants contribute $100 towards the work likely required to remove the hooks and remedy any resulting damage. That amount is awarded.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 3
13. The landlord also seeks reimbursement of two [NAME] excesses incurred in relation to the replacement of carpet.
14. The landlord has provided evidence showing that the carpet was stained by a dark substance. The tenants say that the stain resulted from spilled coffee. The staining does not appear consistent with a typical coffee stain, as it is a dark charcoal colour. However, the tenants accept that the staining occurred during the tenancy and that their attempts to remove it were unsuccessful.
15. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it resulted from the tenants' breach of section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The evidence suggests that the damage was caused carelessly rather than intentionally.
16. I am further satisfied that the [NAME] excesses were reasonably incurred as a consequence of that damage. The claim for the two [NAME] excesses, totalling $800, is therefore awarded.
Are the tenants liable for the power reconnection fee?
17. The applicant submits that this property has a physical fuse that is removed when power is disconnected. The landlord relies on a provision contained within a list of vacating instructions advising tenants not to disconnect the power because reconnection fees may apply. The landlord says that this requirement is specific to this property. The landlord acknowledged tenants can move or close their account however notes that this distinction is critical in this specific property.
18. The landlord states that, after the tenancy ended, a new electricity account was established. Electricity supply was then disconnected on 12 March. Following enquiries, the landlord was advised that the disconnection had been carried out on instructions received through a company associated with [NAME] and [NAME], on the basis that the current customer had advised that the property was becoming vacant.
19. The information provided by the electricity supplier suggests that the tenants informed their power company that they were vacating the property, which they were entitled to do. The evidence does not establish that the tenants expressly instructed the power company to disconnect the electricity supply.
20. If the property requires a particular process to avoid disconnection, that requirement ought to be highlighted more prominently. While the instruction relied upon by the landlord is clear when read in hindsight, it appears within a lengthy list of vacating requirements. In any event, the evidence suggests that the disconnection resulted from an assumption made by the power company following notification that the tenants were vacating, rather than from any direct instruction given by the tenants to disconnect the power.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 4
21. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the tenants are liable for the reconnection fee. This claim is dismissed.
Filing fees and suppression
22. Both parties made applications and neither party has been wholly successful.
23. In those circumstances, each party shall bear their own filing fee.
24. Suppression is granted to both parties.
[NAME] 18 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5477409 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenants were responsible for rent arrears because the landlord's records showed the amount owing and the tenants acknowledged it.
- The tenants were liable for cleaning costs because there were minor deficiencies like soap scum and dust, and the claimed amount was modest.
- The tenants were liable for a contribution towards wall repairs because damage was likely from removing hooks.
- The tenants were responsible for carpet replacement excesses because the carpet was stained during the tenancy due to their carelessness.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants were not liable for the full extent of claimed wall damage because the landlord did not prove it actually occurred.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant is responsible for rent arrears and certain repairs but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant owed rent arrears, cleaning costs, repair costs, and a power reconnection fee.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for rent arrears and certain repairs but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee, based on the evidence presented.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(iii) and 40(2)(a), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the tenant was responsible for rent arrears and certain repairs but not for minor cleaning issues or a power reconnection fee.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they leave the rental property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and avoid disconnecting the power supply unless necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The rent records, evidence of cleaning deficiencies, repair invoices, and evidence of the power disconnection were important.