Tenant Ordered to Pay $12,126.44 for Cleaning and Security Costs Due to Anti-Social Behavior
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to pay $12,126.44 to the landlord for cleaning and security costs. The tenant's anti-social behavior, including fights and property damage, led to these costs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must compensate a landlord for reasonable costs incurred due to the tenant's breaches of the tenancy agreement.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the rental property reasonably clean and tidy, and leaving it in that condition when moving out. It also requires tenants to ensure the premises are used mainly for living purposes.
Generally, the Tenancy Tribunal cannot order one party to pay the other's legal costs. However, it can make such an order in specific situations, such as when a case is considered frivolous or vexatious, or if a party was represented by a lawyer.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded the landlord significant compensation for cleaning and security costs due to the tenant's anti-social behavior.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $12,126.44 for cleaning and security costs due to the tenant's anti-social behavior, which included fights, intoxicated individuals, and property damage. The Tribunal found the tenant's conduct breached the tenancy agreement and caused substantial harm to neighboring residents.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5089528 1
[2025] NZTT 5089528
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat 4I, 22-[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Dilworth Building
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] must pay [NAME] $12,126.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Cost of security guards $11,811.94 Cleaning $287.50 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $12,126.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $12,126.44
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 24 December 2024. The other party was contacted but advised that she could not participate due to other commitments. I am satisfied that the tenant was aware of the hearing or ought to have been aware of the hearing and chose not to participate. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
2. The landlord originally applied for termination of the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour and compensation. By the time of the hearing, the tenancy had already ended, and the landlord advised that they no longer sought termination but
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5089528 2
pursued claims for compensation in the amount of $287.50 for cleaning and $11,811.94 for the cost of security guards, arising from the tenant’s conduct and associated breaches of the tenancy agreement.
3. After hearing the landlord’s position, the Tribunal requested further information to determine the matter. The hearing was briefly adjourned to enable the landlord an opportunity to provide this information.
Are the landlord’s claims for cleaning and security costs recoverable?
4. The premises are part of a unit title development governed by a Body Corporate. Following repeated complaints and serious concerns from other residents, the Body Corporate resolved to install full-time security presence at the building’s entrance due to the tenant’s ongoing conduct and the associated risk to the safety and wellbeing of occupants and visitors. The cost of security was ultimately charged to the landlord as the unit owner of Apartment 4I.
5. Evidence provided by the landlord, including photographic evidence, formal complaints from residents, and correspondence from the Body Corporate, demonstrated a persistent pattern of anti-social behaviour linked to the tenant and her associates. This included fights and shouting within the apartment, intoxicated individuals and homeless persons entering and sleeping in the common areas, an unmanned aggressive dog roaming the building, property damage, obstructions in shared corridors, and bodily waste in fire egress areas. Blood was found splattered in the building’s lift and stairwell following a physical altercation. These matters were raised with the tenant on multiple occasions and assurances were given that the conduct would cease. However, the behaviour persisted throughout the tenancy.
6. Tenants must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This obligation is fundamental and applies not only to the tenant personally, but also to the conduct of any guests or associates permitted on the premises. The landlord’s uncontested evidence shows repeated and serious breaches of this duty. The tenant failed to control the behaviour of guests, allowed unsafe and unsanitary conditions to develop, and ignored prior warnings. The impact on neighbouring residents was substantial and ongoing.
7. The costs of cleaning ($287.50) were directly attributable to the blood and bodily waste left in common areas as a result of violent incidents linked to the tenancy. The claim is supported by an invoice and photographic evidence, and is reasonable in quantum.
8. The claim for $11,811.94 for security guard costs is more substantial, but the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that these costs were a necessary and
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5089528 3
proportionate response to repeated, serious safety concerns directly attributable to the tenant’s occupancy. The costs were incurred by the Body Corporate and passed on to the landlord. The Body Corporate’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and it is appropriate that the landlord be entitled to recover these costs from the party whose conduct necessitated them. The Tribunal accepts this as recoverable consequential loss arising from the tenant’s breach of her obligations under the tenancy.
9. Accordingly, I find the landlord’s claims for $287.50 and $11,811.94 proved.
10. As the landlord is wholly successful in their application, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44 under section 102(2) of the RTA.
[NAME]
28 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5089528 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5089528 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 was aware of the hearing and chose not to participate, so the hearing proceeded without her.
- The landlord provided evidence of persistent anti-social behavior by the tenant and her associates.
- The tenant repeatedly breached their duty to not interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of others.
- The cleaning costs were directly caused by violent incidents linked to the tenancy and were supported by evidence.
- The security guard costs were a necessary and reasonable response to serious safety concerns caused by the tenant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was ordered to pay the landlord $12,126.44 for cleaning and security costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the landlord's claim for compensation due to the tenant's anti-social behavior.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord because the tenant's behavior caused significant harm and costs to the landlord and other residents.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(c) and 102(2) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing the tenant's persistent anti-social behavior and its impact on the landlord and other residents.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be required to compensate their landlord for costs related to their anti-social behavior.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence, formal complaints from residents, and correspondence from the Body Corporate mattered.