Tenant Ordered to Pay $742.52 for Damages and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay the landlord $742.52 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises and the need for cleaning and lawn maintenance.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and repair 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 their tenancy. It also requires the tenant, when moving out, to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and to remove all their rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $742.52 for damages and cleaning costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $742.52 for damages and cleaning costs after the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises and the need for cleaning and lawn maintenance.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985331 1
[2025] NZTT 4985331
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Remote Location
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $742.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Rubbish removal $299.48 Rubbish removal $72.40 Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1 $47.54 Repairs - hole in wall of bedroom 2 $47.54 Repairs - hole in wall of living room $47.54 Cleaning $135.50 Lawns and Garden work $92.52 Total award $742.52 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $742.52
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985331 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided invoices and photos to evidence the need for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing, as well as the respective costs incurred. These costs are considered reasonable and are awarded.
5. The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985331 3
applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
10. 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.
11. Three rooms had a hole in a wall (bedrooms 1 and 2, and the living room).
12. The landlord provided photos in support. It agreed the evidence of two holes in one room was not proven and that claim was reduced to a single hole cost as ordered.
13. The landlord sought $47.54 for the cost of repair of each hole. The holes were of a significant size and the cost is reasonable.
14. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
15. The amounts ordered are proved.
16. 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. The costs awarded are for repairs only and not any subsequent repainting.
M Brennan
17 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985331 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985331 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 tenant did not remove all rubbish from the premises.
- The tenant did not repair holes in three walls, which were more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord provided invoices and photos proving the need for cleaning and repairs.
- The costs for cleaning and repairs were considered reasonable by the court.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed that the damages were due to fair wear and tear.
- The tenant argued that they did not intentionally cause the damage to the walls.
- The tenant did not provide evidence to disprove their responsibility for the damage.
- The tenant did not show that the costs for cleaning and repairs were unreasonable.
- The tenant did not demonstrate that the landlord's claims were exaggerated or false.
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 the landlord $742.52 for damages and cleaning costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant leaving the premises in a condition that required extensive cleaning and repairs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the damages and cleaning costs because the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B(1)
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and for repairing any damage beyond fair wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means they must ensure the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, or face potential costs for damages and cleaning.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included invoices and photos showing the need for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn mowing, as well as the respective costs incurred.