VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Ordered to Pay $4,271 for Cleaning and Grounds Restoration

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to pay $4,271.00 to the landlord for cleaning and grounds restoration costs after the tenant failed to leave the rental property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy upon termination of the tenancy.

Topics

tenancy obligationscleaning costsgrounds restoration

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s.40

This section states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also requires the tenant, when moving out, to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and 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 $4,271.00 for cleaning and grounds restoration costs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $4,271.00 for cleaning and grounds restoration costs following the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

📚 Full judgment Official document

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5125754 1

[2025] NZTT 5125754

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: 5 Bredins Line, Marton, Marton 4710

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] $4,271.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning costs $1,650.00 Rubbish removal & grounds restoration $2,594.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $4,271.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $4,271.00

Reasons:

1. A hearing of this matter was convened on 9 April 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and efforts to contact the tenant using the contact number provided were unsuccessful. I was satisfied that the hearing notice had been properly served on the tenant and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

2. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5125754 2

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 (“RTA”).

4. Where damage to the premises is alleged, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Tenants are also liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent.

5. The standard for “reasonably clean and tidy” does not require professional cleaning but does require a level of cleanliness that an ordinary person would consider acceptable. Damages that arise from neglect, deliberate acts, or careless behaviour—rather than fair wear and tear—can also be subject to compensation.

6. Having considered the photographic evidence, inspection reports and the invoices submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant did not comply with their obligations under the RTA at the end of the tenancy.

7. The final inspection report, supported by photographic evidence, clearly indicates that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean or tidy condition. Floors and surfaces throughout the property were dusty and dirty, with rubbish left in various areas. Cupboards and drawers had not been thoroughly cleaned, and kitchen benchtops showed visible residue. Skirting boards, walls, window frames, and glass panels were all unclean, with cobwebs and accumulated dirt clearly present. The shower unit was also inadequately cleaned, with significant soap scum and grime visible around the drain and floor area.

8. The external grounds were in a particularly poor state. The lawns and gardens were severely overgrown, and the yard was strewn with rubbish. Photographs show cut tree branches dumped in various areas, visible signs of rubbish being burnt, and a metal barrel left behind. A tree had been defaced with a face carved into it, which constitutes damage. Additional items left behind by the tenant included wooden drawers near the shed and visible damage to the shed where a section had been cut out.

9. The evidence supports a clear breach of the tenant’s obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to take reasonable care of the premises. The condition of both the interior and exterior at the end of the tenancy fell well below the expected standard.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5125754 3

10.The invoices provided for the cleaning ($1,650) and outdoor work including rubbish removal ($2,594) are consistent with the scope of the issues presented in the photographs and inspection report. I find these costs to be reasonable and necessary to restore the property to a reasonable standard.

11.There is no evidence to suggest the charges are inflated or that the work was unnecessary. I accept the landlord’s claim in full.

12.As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

J Setefano

18 April 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5125754 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5125754 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.
  • The floors and surfaces were dusty and dirty with visible residue.
  • The external grounds were severely overgrown with rubbish strewn everywhere.
  • Cleaning costs of $1,650 and outdoor work costs of $2,594 were deemed reasonable.
  • There was no evidence suggesting the charges were inflated or unnecessary.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's failure to attend the hearing did not provide any defense.
  • No photographic evidence or inspection reports were submitted by the tenant.
  • The tenant did not provide any proof that the damages were due to fair wear and tear.
  • The tenant did not offer any explanation for leaving the property in poor condition.

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 $4,271.00 to the landlord for cleaning and grounds restoration costs.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the tenant's obligation to leave the rental property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord $4,271.00 because the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as evidenced by photographs and inspection reports.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e) and 40(2)(a) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenant did not comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

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 they leave the rental property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition to avoid having to pay cleaning and grounds restoration costs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographic evidence, inspection reports, and invoices for cleaning and grounds restoration costs mattered in this decision.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Tenant Ordered to Pay Cleaning Costs | Tenancy Tribunal | VadeLab