VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Ordered to Pay for Cleaning and Repairs

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,407.95 for cleaning and repairs after the tenant left the premises unreasonably dirty and untidy at the end of the tenancy.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

📖 What the law says

Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s.40

This rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy during their 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.

Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s.41

This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property. If that person does something that would break the tenancy agreement, like causing damage, the tenant is held accountable.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord for cleaning and repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,407.95 for cleaning and repairs after the tenant left the premises unreasonably dirty and untidy at the end of the tenancy.

📚 Full judgment Official document

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 1

[2026] NZTT 5435198

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $3,407.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

2. [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $304.00 (3111093-013) to [COMPANY] immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Rubbish removal $228.80 Oven/stove cleaning $168.44 Lawns and Garden work: Mowing $1,904.97 Lawns and Garden work: Removal of grass clippings $1,345.22 Repairs: Hole in wall $36.52 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,711.95 Bond $304.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $3,407.95

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 2

Reasons:

1. The landlord attended the hearing on 17 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.

2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

3. As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The law

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.1

5. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable.2 It does not mean commercially clean,3 spotless4 or to a hotel or motel standard.5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected.6

6. The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.”7 The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.

Oven

7. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises, including the oven, reasonably clean and tidy. There is dirt and debris on the floors, which do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. The oven is dirty and has not been cleaned.

8. Fortunately for the tenant, the landlord only seeks compensation to clean the oven, not the entire house. The landlord submitted an invoice for $168.44 to clean the oven. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount.

1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 3

Rubbish removal

9. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not removal all rubbish. The inside of wardrobes and the garage are full of rubbish and personal belongings. Rubbish is also scattered throughout the lawn.

10. The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for $228.80. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount.

Lawns

11. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the lawns are very overgrown. They are the most overgrown lawns I have seen to date. There is a metal washing line in the back yard. The lawns are almost as high as the washing line. For this reason, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

12. The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts:

a. Yard/garden labour: $1,904.97

b. Dispose clippings: $1,345.22

13. The amounts sought are high however, they reasonably reflect the extent of work required to bring the lawn back to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I also note that the size of the lawn is relatively large.

14. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,904.97 to cut the lawns and $1,345.22 to dispose of the clippings.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises during the tenancy?

The law

15. 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.8

16. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant.9

8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 4

Analysis

17. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls in bedroom 3 to be in good condition with no obvious holes. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show a hole in the wall of bedroom 3. The hole is approximately 2 – 4 cm wide.

18. I find the hole occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

19. The landlord submitted an invoice for $36.52 to repair the hole. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

20. All of the amounts ordered are proved.

21. 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.

Filing fee

22. [COMPANY] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

[NAME]

18 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5435198 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 leave the oven clean, requiring $168.44 to clean it.
  • The tenant left rubbish scattered throughout the house, requiring $228.80 to remove.
  • The tenant did not maintain the lawns, requiring $1,904.97 to cut the lawns and $1,345.22 to dispose of the clippings.
  • The tenant caused a hole in the wall during the tenancy, requiring $36.52 to repair.
  • The landlord successfully proved the tenant's breach of tenancy obligations and is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant did not attend the hearing to present their side of the story.
  • The tenant did not provide evidence to disprove liability for the damages found during the tenancy.
  • The tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and tidiness as required by law.

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 the landlord $3,407.95 for cleaning and repairs.

What was the dispute about?

The landlord claimed the tenant left the premises unreasonably dirty and untidy at the end of the tenancy, requiring cleaning and repairs.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the landlord, finding that the tenant did not meet their obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) and 41 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenant left the premises unreasonably dirty and untidy, requiring significant cleaning and repairs.

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 that they leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of their tenancy to avoid having to pay for cleaning and repairs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing the state of the premises were crucial evidence.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.