Tenant Ordered to Pay $3,137 for Damages and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,137.00 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenant left the premises in an untidy state and did not repair damage beyond fair wear and tear.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for repairing any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. It also requires the tenant, when moving out, to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
This section makes a tenant responsible for actions or inactions of anyone they allow onto the property, if those actions would have broken the tenancy agreement had the tenant done them. If someone intentionally or carelessly damages the property while the tenant is there, it's assumed the tenant allowed that person to be there.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,137.00 for damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,137.00 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not repair damage beyond fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5178012 1
[2025] NZTT 5178012
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT QUEENSTOWN | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀHUNA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] (Trustees: [NAME]) $3,137.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only $200.00 Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal $678.00 Repairs: window latches $277.00 Repairs: to walls, beyond fair wear and tear $1,125.00 Repairs: deck staining and mat purchase $220.00 Replace furnishings: cord on blind repairs $150.00 Key replacement $20.00 Replacement cost to outdoor chairs $90.00 Lawns and Garden (weeding) work $100.00 Cleaning: residue off walls $120.00 Rubbish removal: including tenant’s desk and dog fence remediation and ash
$130.00
Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $3,137.00 Bond $3,137.00 $1,663.00
2. [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (6044015-001) immediately apportioned as follows:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5178012 2
[COMPANY] (Trustees: [NAME]): $3,137.00
[NAME]: $1,663.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in January 2025.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
3. 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.
4. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. I have moderated the cleaning costs claimed to recognise the tenant’s obligation to bring the premises to a reasonable, rather than professional standard. The landlord also had to attend to weeding in the garden.
5. The walls and carpet had to be cleaned thoroughly, including stain removal on the carpets.
6. The tenant did not return one of the keys.
7. The outdoor chair was damaged upon return.
8. Only the amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
9. 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.
10. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: window latches, blinds, decking and walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5178012 3
11. 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.
12. Lastly, I dismiss the landlord’s claim about overcrowding and alleged commercial subletting of the premises. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that at no time has she sublet the premises for short-term rentals such as Airbnb. She had boarders and housemates staying in the other 3 bedrooms. I do not consider it necessary for the tenant to provide the boarders’ fullnames to the landlord in the circumstances. I also accept the tenant’s explanation that she had inadvertently allowed one extra occupant in the premises not realising that the maximum was 5 (instead of 6) occupants only. I consider the additional wear on the premises to be negligible. Finally, while the tenant had parted with possession of the premises during the last month of the tenancy, she only permitted one house- sitter to be there paying only $100.00 per week to the tenant. I do not consider the tenant to have acted improperly or breached the tenancy agreement in an adverse manner, under the circumstances.
13. Only the amounts ordered are proved.
14. The bond will be disbursed to the parties accordingly as set out above.
J Tam
12 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5178012 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5178012 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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, leading to cleaning costs.
- The tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not return one of the keys provided for the property.
- The outdoor chair was damaged when it was returned at the end of the tenancy.
- Damage to window latches, blinds, decking, and walls was beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not disprove liability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim about overcrowding and alleged commercial subletting of the premises was dismissed.
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 $3,137.00 for damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible 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), 41, and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not repair any damage 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?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that they leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and repair any damage beyond fair wear and tear to avoid similar penalties.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and the specific damages incurred.