Tenant ordered to pay cleaning and repair costs from bond
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay $963 from the bond for cleaning and repair costs because the premises were left unreasonably dirty and certain damages were beyond fair wear and tear.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and for repairing damages beyond fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. It also requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when the tenancy ends, and to remove all their belongings and rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay cleaning and repair costs from the bond.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $963 from the bond for cleaning and repair costs after determining that the premises were left unreasonably dirty and that certain damages were beyond fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 1
[2025] NZTT 5147271
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements) to pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] $963.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning $450.00 Carpet Cleaning $325.00 Repairs: Holes from bracket $161.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $963.00 Bond $963.00 $1,197.00
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (3322867-007) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME]: $963.00
Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements): $1,197.00
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 2
Reasons:
1. Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.
2. The tenant did not attend. She made adjournment applications before the hearing, which were declined. She then advised the Tribunal that she would not attend the hearing but provided evidence in response to the claims. I have considered all of the evidence and communications from the tenant.
Adjournment Requests
3. The tenancy ended in late 2024. This application was made in January 2025. In March, the parties were advised that the hearing would occur by video, on 22 May 2025.
4. The tenant contacted the Tribunal on 19 May, requesting an adjournment. She was asked to provide a medical certificate to support her request.
5. Providing a medical certificate does not entitle a party to an adjournment. The certificate is one piece of evidence which the Tribunal will consider when determining an adjournment application. The medical certificate should set out a medical reason why the person is not able to attend and participate in a hearing. It would also assist the Tribunal if the certificate recorded that the practitioner had some knowledge of the nature of the hearing; this one was a short video hearing.
6. The tenant provided a medical certificated on 21 May. The document contained one sentence, stating that the tenant could not attend the hearing. The certificate did not set out the grounds for the practitioner’s opinion.
7. The tenant was asked to provide a more fulsome medical certificate. The start of the hearing was deferred to give her an opportunity to obtain that evidence the morning before the hearing, if necessary.
8. The landlord was advised of the adjournment request and opposed the adjournment.
9. The tenant provided an updated medical certificate late in the afternoon before the hearing. Again, the certificate contained little information as to why the tenant could not attend a one-hour video hearing and/or was unable to represent herself. The reasons given for the certificate, suggested that a hearing may be stressful but did not clearly identify a physical or mental incapacity.
10. The tenant maintained that I was required to grant the adjournment in the interests of natural justice.
11. Natural justice requires me to consider the interests of both parties. I am also mindful that the Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 3
likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. See s85 Residential Tenancies Act.
12. Where a tenant makes a late adjournment request, it is incumbent on them to provide the proper evidence to allow the Tribunal to make an informed decision. A scant medical certificate which provides no basis for the practitioner’s opinion is not sufficient.
13. Weighing the evidence provided by the tenant, the landlord’s desire to have the matter resolved, the inability to reallocate Tribunal resources at this late stage, the nature of the dispute and the hearing modality, I declined the adjournment request.
14. The tenant was not prejudiced by my refusal to grant the adjournment as I allowed her time to provide written or documentary evidence, which she did. I note that she had not provided any response to the claims within the timeframe set out in the Notice of Hearing.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
15. 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.
16. The landlord maintains that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish (including green waste from beside the garage). The tenant disputes the claims.
17. The standard is reasonably clean; it is not pristine or commercially clean. Both parties provided photographic evidence from the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided a list of the cleaning she did at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the cleaning which was done after the tenant left.
18. The tenant’s photographs suggest that the premises were reasonably clean. They are photographs from a distance. The landlord’s photographs more clearly show grime and dirt buildup that had not been addressed on walls, skirtings, windowsills, shower base and switches. On balance, the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. I award $450.00 of the $621.00 having regard to the landlord’s photographs and the extent of cleaning likely to have been required to return the premises to a reasonable standard.
19. The landlord also established that there were stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice. I award the amount claimed for stain removal of $325.00.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 4
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
20. 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.
21. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Large screw holes where a bracket was removed from the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided photographs and a receipt for the repair cost. I award the amount claimed, $161.00.
22. As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
[NAME]
24 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5147271 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 landlord proved that the tenant left the premises not reasonably clean.
- The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove the need for cleaning.
- The landlord showed that stains on the carpet were present at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not provide adequate proof that they did not cause the large screw holes.
- The landlord successfully demonstrated that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant requested an adjournment based on a vague medical certificate.
- The tenant did not provide detailed reasons for why they could not attend the hearing.
- The tenant did not submit timely responses to the claims within the specified timeframe.
- The tenant did not provide sufficient counter-evidence to refute the landlord's claims.
- The tenant did not address the specific issues raised by the landlord regarding cleanliness and repairs.
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 $963 from the bond for cleaning and repair costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant left the rental property reasonably clean and whether certain damages were the tenant's responsibility.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the cleaning and repair costs because the premises were left unreasonably dirty and certain damages were beyond fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) and 40(2)(a) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the premises were left unreasonably dirty and certain damages were 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?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the premises are left reasonably clean and that any damages are either avoided or repaired.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence and invoices for cleaning and repairs were considered important.