Tenant Ordered to Pay Costs for Damages and Cleaning
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,680.00 from the bond for various costs including water rates, cleaning, and damage repairs. The tribunal found that the tenant left the property in a very dirty condition, requiring significant cleaning and repair work.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for leaving the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition 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 claimant successfully recovered costs for damages and cleaning from the respondent.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant $1,680.00 from the bond for various costs including water rates, cleaning, and damage repairs. The claimant proved that the property was left in a very dirty condition, requiring significant cleaning and repair work.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 1
[2025] NZTT 5067864
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] also known as [NAME], must pay [COMPANY] ([NAME]) $1,680.00 from the bond, immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3232024-015) to [COMPANY] ([NAME]) immediately.
Description Landlord Tenant
Water rates $144.38 Carpet Cleaning $200.00 Cleaning: interior of property $603.50 Rubbish removal $398.26 Repairs: insurance excess - damaged bathroom floor vinyl
$450.00
Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,823.14 Bond $1,680.00 (Total payable by Tenant to Landlord but waived by landlord)
$143.14
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 2
Reasons:
1. [NAME], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 695, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. The hearing was adjourned in a Tribunal order dated 3 February 2025, with directions made by me to effect service on the tenant, which was completed. As such, the tenant is deemed to have been served so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
2. The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for water rates?
3. The tenancy ended on 3 June 2022. The landlord initially claimed $211.66 for water rates to the end of the tenancy but amended their claim for water rates to $144.38 during the hearing, as they had omitted to provide one of the water invoices relied upon. I find the landlord provided water invoices which prove that $144.38 is owing by the tenant for water rates to 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. The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
6. The landlord provided photographs of the final inspection of the property, which showed the property was left in a very dirty condition. The photographs showed a dirty stove and oven, grimy areas beside the stove, dirty kitchen drawers and cupboards, visible marks on several doors and windowsills, stains and dirt left on carpets, including some green slime left on one of the bedroom carpets, extremely dirty light fittings, notable levels of dust on the skirting boards and other dirty areas in the house that required cleaning.
7. The landlord said there was extensive rubbish left by the tenant in the garden shed and provided photographs of the rubbish left and condition of the shed at the final inspection. The photographs showed multiple cans of paint, many personal belongings and other rubbish strewn throughout and around the shed area and outside generally.
8. The landlord claimed $603.50 to clean the interior of the property, $200.00 to have the carpets cleaned and $398.26 to remove the exterior rubbish left at the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 3
end of the tenancy, and provided invoices for all of these. Given the evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, outlined above, I find the landlord has proved that it was likely the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. I also find the amounts claimed for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal by the landlord are reasonable, given the evidence of the work required at the end of the tenancy.
9. Therefore, I award $603.50 to the landlord for cleaning the interior of the premises, $200.00 to the landlord for carpet cleaning and $398.26 to the landlord for rubbish removal.
10. The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
11. 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.
12. 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 damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 4
17. The landlord said that during the tenancy the tenant caused damage. The landlord said the tenant locked her dogs in the bathroom and the dogs tried to scrape and scratch through the bathroom floor vinyl to get out and damaged the bathroom vinyl. The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged bathroom vinyl, which was quite extensive.
18. The landlord said the tenant admitted her liability and what had occurred, and the owner made an insurance claim for the damage to the bathroom vinyl by the tenant’s dogs, incurring insurance excess of $550.00. The landlord provided confirmation of the insurance excess and showed a ledger indicating the tenant had paid $100.00 to the landlord towards the insurance excess cost. Therefore, the landlord claimed $450.00 for the remaining insurance excess incurred for this incident that damaged the bathroom floor vinyl.
19. Given the evidence, I find the damage to the bathroom floor vinyl was likely careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here, which is $450.00.
20. Therefore, I award the landlord the remaining insurance excess cost claimed of $450.00.
21. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
22. The amounts ordered are proved.
Refund of the bond
23. The landlord said the tenant signed around 3 or 4 bond refund forms but that they were told by Tenancy Services that the tenant’s signatures differed on the forms, that the tenant’s last name was different in 2 of the forms and that Tenancy Services could not reach the tenant to confirm her signature. As such, the landlord said the [COMPANY] would not release the bond to them.
24. The landlord provided a series of emails between them and the tenant after the tenancy ended, where the tenant confirmed that she was not disputing what the landlord indicated they claimed at the time.
25. The landlord said that, during discussions with the tenant about the bond, the owner said they would forego any amount claimed that was over the amount of bond held by the [COMPANY], which is $1,680.00. The landlord said at the hearing that the owner was still prepared to waive any amount claimed that exceeded the bond amount held.
26. As such, the [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3232024-015) to [COMPANY] ([NAME]) immediately.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 5
Filing fee
27. [COMPANY] ([NAME]) has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
C Price
30 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 6
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 [NAME]/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 [NAME]/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.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5067864 7
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: [NAME]/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 owes $144.38 for water rates as proven by the landlord's water invoices.
- The landlord's claim for $603.50 for cleaning the interior of the property, $200.00 for carpet cleaning, and $398.26 for rubbish removal is considered reasonable based on the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant is responsible for the $450.00 insurance excess due to the damage caused by her dogs to the bathroom floor vinyl, as the damage was considered careless and not intentional.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's liability for the bond refund forms was disputed due to inconsistencies in signatures and names, leading to the landlord withholding the bond.
- The tenant's admission of liability for the damage to the bathroom vinyl was accepted, but the exact circumstances leading to the damage were not detailed enough to dispute the landlord's claim.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,680.00 from the bond for various costs including water rates, cleaning, and damage repairs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's responsibility to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the costs because the property was left in a very dirty condition, requiring significant cleaning and repair work.
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 the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, which required significant cleaning and repair work.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
This means that a tenant is responsible for leaving the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, and may be required to pay for any necessary cleaning or repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the final inspection of the property showing the very dirty condition, and invoices for cleaning and repair costs mattered.