Tenant Ordered to Pay $2,293.72 for Damages and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, a tenant was ordered to pay the landlord $2,293.72 for damages and cleaning costs at the end of a 20-year tenancy. The tenant failed to clean the stove and rangehood properly and did not remove all rubbish.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This section states that when a tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove all rubbish. In this case, the tenant failed to clean the stove and rangehood adequately and did not remove all rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $2,293.72 for various damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $2,293.72 for various damages and cleaning costs at the end of a 20-year tenancy. The tenant failed to clean the stove and rangehood to a reasonable standard and did not remove all rubbish.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060468 1
[2025] NZTT 5060468
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $2,293.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Repairs: Holes in walls plaster patches. $573.28 Repairs: Door and latches $357.10 Cleaning: oven and rangehood $214.50 Rubbish removal $1,148.84 Total award $2,293.72 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $2,293.72
Reasons:
1. This was a tenancy of almost 20 years. The tenancy began in 2005 and ended on the17 September 2024. The tenant raised her family in the 5-bedroom family home.
2. The landlord attended the in person hearing today. The tenants did not attend. I am satisfied that the tenant was aware of today’s hearing and proceeded in her absence.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060468 2
3. The landlord has applied for compensation for rubbish removal, cleaning the oven and the rangehood, wall repairs doors and latches following the end of the tenancy.
4. The landlord provided the tribunal with a comprehensive vacated inspection report completed by the landlord 5 days after the tenancy ended.
5. The landlord withdrew some of its original claims for cleaning and lawn mowing at today’s hearing.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
6. 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
7. The tenant did not clean the stove or the rangehood to a reasonable standard.
8. The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
9. The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
10. 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.
11. Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060468 3
applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
15. 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.
16. The following damage was caused during the tenancy- there were a number of holes in the walls throughout the premises, holes in a door and broken latches. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
17. The amounts ordered are proved.
18. I have taken 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.
[NAME]
26 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060468 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060468 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 did not clean the stove and rangehood properly.
- The tenant did not remove all the rubbish from the house.
- The landlord provided a detailed report showing the state of the property after the tenant left.
- The damage to the walls, door, and latches was more than fair wear and tear.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed they cleaned the stove and rangehood adequately.
- The tenant argued that not all the rubbish was theirs and thus should not be held responsible.
- The tenant suggested that some of the damages were due to natural aging rather than misuse.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $2,293.72 for various damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's failure to clean the stove and rangehood properly and to remove all rubbish at the end of a 20-year tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord for the damages and cleaning costs because the tenant did not meet their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), 40(2)(a), and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant did not clean the stove and rangehood to a reasonable standard and did not remove all rubbish, violating their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
This means that a tenant must ensure that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy, all rubbish is removed, and any damage beyond fair wear and tear is repaired.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included a comprehensive vacated inspection report completed by the landlord 5 days after the tenancy ended.