Tenant Ordered to Pay $7,080.31 for Damages and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to pay $7,080.31 to the landlord for damages and cleaning costs. The landlord showed photos proving the tenant left the premises unreasonably dirty and damaged.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages and cleaning costs at the end of a tenancy if they fail to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the rental property reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also requires tenants, when moving out, to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all their belongings and rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $7,080.31 for various damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $7,080.31 for various damages and cleaning costs. The landlord provided photographic evidence showing the premises were left unreasonably clean and tidy, with damages exceeding fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210131 1
[2025] NZTT 5210131
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WHANGANUI | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WHANGANUI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] $7,080.31 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Description Landlord Cleaning $480.70 Repairs: insurance excesses $5,000.00 Repairs: windows and latches $433.46 Window repairs: glass $630.40 Lock/key replacement $385.00 Rubbish removal $123.75 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $7,080.31 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $7,080.31
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210131 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.
4. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
5. The tenant did not return the keys.
6. The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
a. There were numerous holes in walls and doors throughout the property. Some had been patched but not repaired to an acceptable
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210131 3
tradespersonlike standard. From the number and nature of the damage, it was intentional.
b. A cupboard door had been removed by the tenant from the laundry cabinet and required repair. This was intentional damage.
c. Vinyl in the kitchen had been ripped and torn in several places. The damage was careless.
d. The glass in a ranch slider and a window were broken and required replacement. The ranch slider itself was damaged. From its nature this damage was intentional.
e. A window had been forced open breaking hinges and latches. This damage was intentional.
13. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
14. The landlord has claimed the nine insurance excesses for the wall and door damage and one insurance excess for the vinyl damage. While the damage to the walls and doors was intentional, the amount claimed is limited to the maximum of the tenant’s liability for careless damage.
15. The amounts ordered are proved.
16. [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
G Baker
23 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210131 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210131 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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant did not return the keys to the landlord.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence of numerous holes in walls and doors, which was considered intentional damage.
- A cupboard door removed by the tenant from the laundry cabinet was considered intentional damage.
- The ripped and torn vinyl in the kitchen was considered careless damage.
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 $7,080.31 to the landlord for damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant leaving the premises unreasonably dirty and damaged at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord because the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as required by law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) and 49B(3)(a) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the photographic evidence showing the premises were left unreasonably dirty and damaged.
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 the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy to avoid such costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence showing the state of the premises was crucial in this case.
