Tenant Ordered to Pay $3,119.47 for Cleaning and Repairs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant must pay the landlord $3,119.47 for cleaning and repairing the premises after moving out. The tenant left the apartment in a very poor condition, requiring extensive cleaning and repairs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for leaving the premises in a state requiring cleaning and repairs beyond fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property. If that person does something that would break the tenancy agreement, the tenant is held accountable for it.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,119.47 for cleaning, repairs, and swipe card replacements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,119.47 for cleaning, repairs, and swipe card replacements. The Tribunal found that the tenant left the premises in a state requiring cleaning and repairs beyond fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 1
[2026] NZTT 5429503
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $3,119.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Swipe card replacement (balance remaining) $44.00 Cleaning $569.61 Rubbish removal $738.95 Repairs: Carpet $497.80 Repairs: Walls $351.03 Repairs: Curtains $181.88 Repairs: Kitchen drawers $233.07 Repairs: Oven $503.13 Total award $3,119.47 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $3,119.47
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing on 15 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 2
3. As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
The law
4. 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.1
5. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable.2 It does not mean commercially clean,3 spotless4 or to a hotel or motel standard.5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected.6
Analysis
6. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. No attempt to clean the premises has been made. Foodstuffs, rubbish, personal and household belongings have been left behind. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped and bench surfaces have not been wiped down. Overall, the premises were left in a very poor condition.
7. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts:
a. Cleaning: $569.61
b. Rubbish removal: $738.95
Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?
The law
8. 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
1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 3
damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.7
9. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant.8
Carpet
10. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the carpet to be in very good condition. It is clean and no obvious stains are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the carpet to be in very poor condition. It is very dirty and badly stained. I find the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the extent of staining was such that full replacement of the carpet was required.
11. The actual cost to replace the carpet was $711.15. The landlord seeks $497.80 of this cost to reflect the age of the carpet at the end of tenancy, which was three years old. This seems reasonable.
12. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $497.80.
Walls
13. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls to be in good condition. No significant marks, dents or scratches are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show dents and scratches to the walls. Parts of the wall are also badly stained, and it appears the tenant has painted a red design on one of the walls. I find the walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
14. The actual cost to repair and paint the walls was $764.55. The landlord seeks $351.03 to reflect the principles of betterment and depreciation. The walls were last painted three years ago. The amount sought seems reasonable.
15. The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls is granted for $351.03.
7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 4
Curtains
16. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the curtains to be in good condition. No significant marks are present, and they are nicely hung to the curtain rail. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show what appears to be blood stains on the bottom of one of the curtains. The curtains have also fallen off the curtain rack. I find the curtains were damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
17. The actual cost to replace the curtains was $291.00. The landlord seeks $181.88 to reflect the age of the curtains, which were 2 – 3 years old. The amount sought seems reasonable.
18. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtains is granted for $181.88.
Kitchen drawers
19. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the kitchen drawers to be in good condition. All drawers are present and no damage is apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show one drawer is missing. I find this kitchen drawer was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
20. The landlord’s claim to repair the kitchen drawer is granted for $233.07.
Oven
21. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the oven to be in good condition. It is clean and the landlord claims it was working. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the oven to be very dirty. The landlord claims it was not working. I accept the landlord’s evidence. I find the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
22. The actual cost to replace the oven was $805.00. The landlord seeks $503.13 of this to reflect the age of the oven at the end of the tenancy, which was three years old. The amount sought seems reasonable.
23. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the oven is granted for $503.13.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 5
Swipe cards
24. The landlord gave evidence that they replaced multiple swipe-cards for the tenant during the tenancy. They submitted invoices totalling $660.00 to replace swipe cards. The tenant has paid $616.00 towards this cost, which leaves a balance of $44.00 remaining. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
25. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the swipe cards is granted for $44.00.
26. All of the amounts ordered are proved.
27. 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.
Filing fee
28. The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
[NAME]
15 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 6
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429503 7
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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The walls showed significant damage including dents, scratches, and stains.
- The curtains were stained with blood and had fallen off the curtain rail.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not provide evidence to disprove liability for the damages.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to contest the claims made by the landlord.
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 $3,119.47 for cleaning, repairs, and swipe card replacements.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the condition of the premises after the tenant moved out, specifically regarding cleaning and necessary repairs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the costs because the premises were left in a state requiring cleaning and repairs beyond fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant left the premises in a state requiring cleaning and repairs beyond fair wear and tear.
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?
For tenants, this means that they could be held responsible for the costs of cleaning and repairs if they leave the premises in a state requiring work beyond fair wear and tear.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, invoices for swipe card replacements, and the condition of various items in the premises were considered.