Tenant Ordered to Pay for Intentional Damage and Cleaning Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,936.29 for cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn and garden work, and repairs to walls and a door frame due to intentional damage.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the rented property reasonably clean and tidy, and removing all rubbish when the tenancy ends. In this case, the tenant was ordered to pay for cleaning and rubbish removal.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn and garden work, and repairs to walls and a door frame.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,936.29 for cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn and garden work, and repairs to walls and a door frame due to intentional damage.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5035749 1
[2025] NZTT 5035749
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Manukau
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
[NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $1,936.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Cleaning $162.46 Rubbish removal $410.30 Lawns and garden work $150.00 Repairing walls and a door frame $1,213.53 Total award $1,936.29
Reasons:
1. [NAME] attended the hearing for the landlord.
2. The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
3. The landlord seeks orders for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5035749 2
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.1
5. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The oven was very dirty. The untidiness extended to the garden also. The grass need to be slashed back and mown.
6. The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
7. The landlord claims for intentional damage to the walls and a door frame.
8. To succeed in a damage claim, landlords 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.2
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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.3
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.4
11. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlords’ photographs suggest that the gib of several walls’ gib have been deliberately with a tool and whole sections of gib have been peeled away, exposing the insulation underneath. The gib appears to have been struck repeatedly with a tool or tools. A doorway frame has been shattered.
12. The damage was plainly caused intentionally. It is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e). 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 3 RTA, s 49B(1). 4 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5035749 3
13. The amounts ordered are proved.
R Kee
19 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5035749 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5035749 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 is responsible for intentional damage to the walls and door frame.
- The tenant did not provide any proof that they did not cause the damage intentionally.
- The damage went beyond normal wear and tear and was clearly caused by deliberate action.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed the damage was due to natural wear and tear, but this was not supported by evidence.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to dispute the claims made by the landlord.
- The tenant did not present any evidence to show they were not responsible for the 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 the landlord $1,936.29 for cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn and garden work, and repairs to walls and a door frame.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant leaving the premises in an untidy state and causing intentional damage to the walls and door frame.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the costs because the damage was intentional and went beyond normal wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e), 49B(1) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was proving that the damage was intentional and not due to normal wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the premises are left in a reasonable state and that any damage is not intentional.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the extent of the damage and the condition of the premises were important evidence.