Tenant Ordered to Pay for Leaving Property in Poor Condition
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to pay the landlord $2,659.55 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage. The tenant left the property in a very poor and unsanitary condition, with dog faeces found throughout the property and the carpet needing replacement.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must compensate the landlord for leaving the premises in an unsanitary condition and causing damage beyond fair wear and tear.
📖 What the law says
This section 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 premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
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, and carpet damage.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $2,659.55 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage. The Tribunal found that the tenant failed to comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, leaving the premises in an unsanitary condition and causing damage beyond fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4996728 1
[2025] NZTT 4996728
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $2,659.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to carpet $2,698.84 Rent credit $39.29 Total award $2,698.84 $39.29 Net award $2,659.55 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $2,659.55
Reasons:
1. A hearing of this matter was convened on 26 March 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and efforts to contact the tenant using the contact number provided were unsuccessful. I was satisfied that the hearing notice had been properly served on the tenant and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation in the sum of $2,998.25 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage to the carpet following the end of the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4996728 2
Did the tenant comply with their obligations?
3. Under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants are required at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. They must also, during the tenancy, replace worn-out smoke alarm batteries. Where damage to the premises is alleged, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Tenants are also liable for the actions of others who occupy the premises with their consent.
4. The landlord provided a detailed vacated property inspection report, photographic evidence, a tenancy statement, and invoices supporting the costs incurred. The evidence was compelling. It showed the premises were left in a very poor and unsanitary condition, with dog faeces found throughout the property. The tenant had moved faeces onto the balcony, but faeces remained inside and was ingrained into the carpet. There was rubbish strewn throughout the premises. The landlord also submitted that the strong odour and biohazard conditions necessitated a professional bio-clean, and that the carpet and underlay had to be replaced.
5. On the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to comply with their obligations under section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. The property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, nor was all rubbish removed. This failure alone entitles the landlord to compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
6. In relation to the carpet, I find that the damage to the carpet and underlay was more than fair wear and tear. The evidence established that the damage was due to ingrained faeces and odour from a dog. The tenant had not attended the hearing and therefore had not discharged the burden of proof. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the damage.
7. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the majority of the costs relate to the deep cleaning and carpet replacement. The landlord waived the cost of $299.41 for a minor clean, which I consider reasonable. The amount claimed therefore totalling $2,698.84 is supported by invoices and is not excessive in the circumstances.
8. The landlord had provided a rent summary showing that a rent credit ($39.29) is available and will be applied to the debt.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4996728 3
9. I therefore find the tenant liable to pay the sum of $2,659.55 to the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage. The claim is proven.
[NAME]
18 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4996728 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4996728 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 failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant left dog faeces throughout the property, including ingrained into the carpet.
- The landlord provided compelling evidence including photos and invoices.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing and thus could not provide counter-evidence.
- The damage to the carpet and underlay was more than fair wear and tear.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not provide any evidence to dispute the landlord's claims.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to explain the condition of the property.
- The tenant did not remove all rubbish from the premises.
- The tenant did not clean the property thoroughly before leaving.
- The tenant did not address the strong odour and biohazard conditions.
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 $2,659.55 for cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the condition of the property when the tenant left, including cleaning, rubbish removal, and carpet damage.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord because they left the property in an unsanitary condition and caused damage beyond fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e) and 40(2)(a) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and caused damage to the carpet that was more than 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 they leave the property in a clean and tidy condition and avoid causing unnecessary damage.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence, a vacated property inspection report, invoices, and a tenancy statement mattered in this decision.
