Tenant Ordered to Clean Up Property Within a Week
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to clean up their property within a week. If the tenant fails to comply, the landlord can undertake the work and charge the tenant up to $5,000. This ruling is based on the tenant's failure to maintain the property as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the obligations set forth under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including maintaining the cleanliness and condition of the rented property.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. It also requires them to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when the tenancy ends, and to remove all rubbish.
This section outlines the types of orders the Tenancy Tribunal can make. These include orders declaring the rights or obligations of any party, or orders for a party to pay money.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to clean up their property within a week, failing which the landlord could undertake the work and charge the tenant up to $5,000.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal ruling, the tenant was ordered to clean up their property within a week, failing which the landlord could undertake the work and charge the tenant up to $5,000. The ruling was based on the tenant's failure to maintain the property as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070728 1
[2025] NZTT 5070728
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: 27B O'[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm Wednesday 26 March 2025:
a. Removal of all rubbish, junk, building materials, furniture, on the property situated at 27B O’[ADDRESS], Otara, Auckland to the satisfaction of the landlord.
b. Removal of all non-permitted structures erected on the property to the satisfaction of the landlord.
c. Removal of all dogs from the property.
d. Removal of all inorganic rubbish from the grass area in front of the property.
e. Removal of all inorganic rubbish on the driveway area.
f. Removal of all items inside the carport.
g. Removal of building materials that have been added to the carport and return the carport to its original state.
2. If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $5,000.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070728 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenant. The tenant’s daughter answered the telephone and stated that her mother was overseas. The tenant’s daughter was not an approved representative. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
2. The landlord claims that the tenant has let accumulate significant rubbish, junk, furniture and other items on the property. The tenant has also erected various structures on the property. These structures are unlawful and without consent and must be removed.
3. The landlord also states that there are several dogs being kept at the property. The tenant has not sought the approval from the landlord to have these dogs. The photographic evidence supplied by the landlord clearly shows several dogs residing at the property. The landlord also served the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy on 30 October 2024 requesting the tenant to remove all dogs. The tenant has failed to remedy the breach.
4. Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
5. Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
6. A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
7. Based on the photographic evidence filed in support by the landlord I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations in this regard.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070728 3
8. The landlord’s claim is allowed.
[NAME]
26 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070728 4
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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070728 5
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 tenant failed to maintain the cleanliness of the property, as evidenced by the accumulation of rubbish and junk.
- The tenant erected unauthorized structures on the property without the landlord's permission.
- The tenant kept multiple dogs on the property without seeking approval from the landlord.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence showing the state of the property, proving the tenant's non-compliance.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing, and their daughter was not an approved representative.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's request for the tenant to clean the property was denied by the court.
- The landlord's demand for the tenant to remove unauthorized structures was contested but upheld.
- The landlord's requirement for the tenant to remove dogs from the property was challenged but accepted.
- The landlord's proposal to impose costs on the tenant for failing to comply with the order was opposed but allowed.
- The landlord's intention to treat the costs as rent in arrears was questioned but permitted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the tenant to clean up their property within a week, or face charges up to $5,000 if they fail to comply.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's failure to maintain the cleanliness and condition of the rented property, leading to the accumulation of rubbish, junk, and unauthorised structures.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord, finding that the tenant had breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by allowing the property to fall into disrepair.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically sections 40(1)(a)-(e), 78(1)(e), 78(2AAB), and 78(2AAC)(a), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the photographic evidence provided by the landlord showing the poor condition of the property and the presence of unauthorised structures and dogs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For tenants in a similar situation, it means they must maintain the cleanliness and condition of their rented property as required by law, or risk facing penalties.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence showing the poor condition of the property and the presence of unauthorised structures and dogs was crucial to the decision.