Tenant Ordered to Pay $4,777 for Damages and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the landlord $4,777.12 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenants failed to leave the premises in a reasonable state at the end of the tenancy.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages and cleaning costs if they fail to leave the premises in a reasonable state at the end of the tenancy.
📖 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 property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the landlord $4,777.12 for damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the landlord $4,777.12 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenants failed to leave the premises in a reasonable state at the end of the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 1
[2025] NZTT 5233353
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT ROTORUA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] As Agent For [COMPANY] $4,777.12 immediately, calculated as follows:
Description Amount Carpets - Insurance excess x2 1,400.00 Carpet cleaning (unsuccessful) 280.00 Full house clean 550.00 Grounds clean-up 240.00 Rubbish removal and dump fees 256.00 Leak repairs (vanity and laundry tub) 143.75 Vanity reinstatement & door handle repairs 428.37 Hole in wall repair 80.00 Lock and key replacement 293.00 Drapes, rails, hooks & labour 359.00 Lost rent (1 week) $720.00 Application filing fee $27.00 Total $4,777.12
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. I have viewed the photographs provided by the [NAME] Manager at the beginning and end of the hearing. The was left in a poor and unsanitary state. There was extensive staining and odour throughout the carpet, confirmed by the professional cleaner to be among the worst they had encountered (animal and human faeces). A full professional clean was required but could not be completed by the first company, due to the overpowering smell – they refused to allow their cleaners into the premises to clean, citing safety concerns. The tenant also failed to clean the grounds, which were described as severely overgrown.
5. Rubbish and debris were left behind, requiring removal and dump fees.
6. The tenant failed to return keys for three locks, requiring rekeying and replacement.
7. The amounts claimed for cleaning, grounds maintenance, rubbish removal, and lock replacement are supported by invoices and the [NAME] managers oral evidence. The following claims and amounts are proved.
a. Carpet cleaning (unsuccessful): $280.00
b. Full house clean: $550.00
c. Grounds clean up: $240.00
d. Rubbish removal: $256.00
e. Locks and keys: $293.00
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
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 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
9. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 3
damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
10. 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.
11. 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 [NAME] is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
12. 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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
13. 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.
14. Most of the damage in this case was extensive and consistent with careless or intentional conduct, as seen in the photos, which have been further described by the [NAME] manager. This includes:
a. Damage to the vanity and laundry tub, which were pulled away from the wall – requiring immense weight or force – causing a leak behind the laundry tub and bending pipes from inside the wall.
b. Damage to multiple door handles, consistent with forceful use.
c. A hole in the bedroom wall.
d. Missing or damaged drapes and rails.
e. Carpet damage caused by pets and an incontinent occupant, well beyond reasonable wear.
15. As for the carpet, which required full replacement in two rooms, the landlord’s insurance policy applied, but the $700 excess was payable twice. The tenant’s liability is limited to the excess per careless incident. Two separate incidents of careless damage have been established based on the nature and timing of the damage.
16. I have awarded a week of lost rent to the Landlord for the time the home was being restored. I accept the [NAME] managers advice that she turns around properties very quickly. However, I consider the weekly rent is considerable, and
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 4
17. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage events which are more than fair wear and tear.
18. I accept that the following compensation amounts are reasonable and proved:
a. Carpet replacement (2 rooms) Insurance excess x2: $1,400.00
b. Leak and pipe repairs (vanity/laundry): $143.75
c. Vanity reinstatement and door handle repairs: $428.37
d. Hole in wall repair: $80.00
e. Replacement of drapes/rails/hooks: $359.00
19. The amounts ordered are proved.
20. 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. The house was brand new prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
21. [COMPANY] As Agent For [COMPANY] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME]
05 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 5
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 [NAME] 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 [NAME].
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5233353 6
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
- Tenant failed to leave the premises clean and tidy, leaving it in a poor and unsanitary state.
- Tenant did not clean the carpets, which were heavily stained and smelled of animal and human waste.
- Tenant did not maintain the grounds, which were described as severely overgrown.
- Tenant did not return all keys, leading to the need for rekeying and replacement.
- Tenant was responsible for the damage to the carpets, vanity, door handles, and the hole in the wall.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Tenant argued that the damage was due to fair wear and tear, but the court found the damage extensive and consistent with careless or intentional conduct.
- Tenant claimed that the carpets were already in poor condition at the start of the tenancy, but the court noted the house was brand new before the tenancy began.
- Tenant disputed the cost of replacing the carpets, arguing it was too high, but the court found the amounts reasonable and supported by invoices.
- Tenant denied responsibility for the missing or damaged drapes and rails, but the court found these damages were consistent with careless or intentional conduct.
- Tenant argued that the lost rent was excessive, but the court accepted the landlord's manager's advice that properties are turned around quickly and considered the weekly rent considerable.
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 tenants to pay the landlord $4,777.12 for damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenants leaving the premises in a poor and unsanitary state at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenants were responsible for the damages and cleaning costs because they failed to 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) and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenants failed to leave the premises in a reasonable state at the end of the tenancy.
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 should ensure that they leave the premises in a reasonable state at the end of the tenancy to avoid similar costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the premises before and after the tenancy, invoices for cleaning and repairs, and the landlord's statements about the condition of the property mattered.