Tenant Ordered to Pay $622 for Damages at End of Tenancy
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $622 from the bond to compensate the landlord for damages and cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and was responsible for repairs 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 rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also requires the tenant to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish when they move out.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $622 from the bond to compensate the landlord for damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $622 from the bond to compensate the landlord for damages and cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and was responsible for repairs beyond fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 1
[2025] NZTT 5049028
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] $622.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3280263-013) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME]: $622.00
[NAME] and [NAME]: $978.00
Description Landlord Tenant Repairs: toilet seat $150.00 Lawns and garden work $85.00 Rubbish removal, gardens and windows $160.00 Carpet $200.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $622.00 Bond $622.00 $978.00
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the two calls made to each of the three numbers provided to the Tribunal at the scheduled time.
2. The landlord provided a screenshot of a text message exchange she had with one of the tenants [NAME], on Friday 24 January 2024. In this exchange Ms [NAME] asks why a Tenancy Tribunal hearing has been scheduled, and states that she will not be able to attend. On the basis of this text exchange, I am satisfied this tenant had notice of the hearing and chose not to attend. No requests for an adjournment have been made in relation to this application. The hearing was therefore conducted in the tenants’ absence.
3. The landlord has applied for 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?
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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
5. At the end of this tenancy the landlord claims the tenant did not mow the lawns, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all of the rubbish.
6. The landlord provided oral evidence and photographs that show the lawns hadn’t been mowed, and an invoice for mowing for $85.00. This claim is proved.
7. The landlord is claiming $320.00 for window cleaning, rubbish removal and gardening. An invoice was produced for this amount, and photographs were also provided showing the condition of the premises at the end of the premises.
8. Whereas I accept there was more cleaning needed before the premises was re- tenanted, I am not persuaded that this claim is fully proved; the windows for instance are not shown to be below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and a further claim for gardening is not substantiated. This claim is partially proved for some further cleaning and rubbish removal.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 3
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. The landlord claims that during the tenancy a toilet seat was broken and needed to be replaced. The landlord provided an invoice for $198.66. Photographs from the start of tenancy show the toilet seat to be undamaged. Photographs from the end of tenancy show the toilet seat to be missing the lid. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability. I find the damage to be careless.
12. This claim is proved and the amount awarded takes into account the fact that by the end of the tenancy the toilet seat was at least five years old.
13. The landlord claims the carpet in bedroom 3 was damaged with a stain the size of an old fifty cent piece, from hair dye. The landlord is claiming $977.00 to replace the carpet in this bedroom. The insurance excess for this claim would have been $3000.00. Oral evidence, photographs and a quotation for $977.00 were provided.
14. I accept the tenants caused the damage and it is more than fair wear and tear. However I do not consider it reasonable to replace the carpet for the whole room because of this one stain. I do not consider the stain would have caused a reduction in the amount of rent that could be charged, and by the end of the tenancy, the carpet was at least five years old. On the other hand, I accept the landlord has suffered a loss because of the tenants’ carelessness and should be compensated for this.
15. I find this claim partially proved and I award a lesser amount based on what I consider to be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
16. The landlord is claiming $85.00 for the replacement of a door handle that they say the tenant replaced during the tenancy because she wanted a door handle with a lock. At the beginning of the subsequent tenancy the door handle broke. An invoice was produced in support of the claim.
17. The damage was not noticed at the end of the tenancy and I am not persuaded that it can be proved the damage was caused by these tenants. By the time the damage was discovered, workers, other people and the new tenants had all been through the property. This claim is not proved.
18. The amounts ordered are proved.
19. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 4
20. [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
[NAME]
09 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 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 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5049028 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
- The tenant did not mow the lawns as required.
- The toilet seat was broken and needed replacement due to careless behavior.
- The carpet in bedroom 3 was stained, causing damage more than fair wear and tear.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claim for window cleaning, rubbish removal, and gardening was only partially accepted.
- The claim for replacing a door handle was not proved as the damage could not be attributed to the tenants.
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 $622 from the bond to compensate the landlord for damages and cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the state of the property at the end of the tenancy and whether the tenant was responsible for damages and cleaning costs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for repairing any damage beyond fair wear and tear, as evidenced by invoices and photographs.
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 failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and was responsible for 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?
This means that a tenant is expected to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and is responsible for repairing any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Invoices, photographs, and oral evidence mattered in this decision.