Tenant's Claims Dismissed for Not Showing Up
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Manukau dismissed the tenant's claims because they did not attend the hearing. The landlord's claim for cleaning costs was upheld, as the property was left in an untidy state.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state upon termination of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a tenant has several responsibilities, including keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also requires that when a tenancy ends, the tenant must 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 tenant's claims were dismissed due to non-attendance, while the landlord's cleaning claim was upheld.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Manukau dismissed the tenant's claims due to non-attendance, while upholding the landlord's claim for cleaning costs under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 1
[2025] NZTT 5019388, 5071298
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MANUKAU | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI MANUKAU
APPLICANT: [redacted] [NAME]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] $1,789.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6461675-002) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME]: $1,789.42
[NAME]: $690.58
3. The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
4. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is not proven and therefore dismissed.
Description Landlord Tenant Carpet Cleaning $240.00 Cleaning $610.00 Cleaning: Rangehood $60.00 Cleaning: Oven $80.00 Cleaning: Walls and ceiling $450.00 Water rates $106.42
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 2
GST on cleaning invoice $216.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,789.42 Bond $1,789.42 $690.58
Reasons:
1. This is a cross application. The landlord filed their claim on the 27 September 2024 seeking:
a) Rent until the 22 October 2024= $2480.
b) Water =$106.42
c) Cleaning $1656.00
d) Application fee.
2. The tenant filed their application on the 14 November 2024 claiming:
a. That the house was not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
b. That there was no hot water
c. That the house was mould and damp
d. That the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and in particular the insulation standard.
e. That the tenant had to repair lights that should have been the landlords responsibility.
f. That the blinds were mouldy and had staining on them.
3. Both of the applications were in front of me today for determination.
4. The matter was called 3 times between 9.30 and 9.45am. [NAME] attended for the landlord the tenant did not attend.
Dismissal of the tenant’s claims.
5. As the tenant did not attend and did not seek an adjournment, his claims are dismissed.
Cleaning.
6. The tenancy ended after the landlord gave notice of the sale of the house. The final date was the 25 September 2024 and the tenant returned the keys on that day.
7. A dispute arose about the cleanliness of the house. The landlord wanted further cleaning to be done. At first the tenant asked for the keys back to clean the property. The landlord did not give the keys back to the tenant.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 3
8. The tenant is expected to have fulfilled their obligations before the end of the tenancy. There is no obligation on a landlord to allow the tenant time to remedy issues after the tenancy ends.
9. The landlord says that the tenant left the property in a condition that was not reasonably clean. The tenant claims in their application that the property was left in a better condition that when the landlord gave them the property. I have looked at the inspection photographs taken at the beginning and the end of the tenancy provided to me today by the landlord. The inspection photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a property that is reasonably clean and tidy. Those taken at the end of the tenancy show a property that is not reasonably clean and tidy.
10. 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.
11. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state, because the photographs show walls and surfaces that have not been wiped, windowsills that are dirty, the oven and rangehood has not been cleaned, the bathroom requires further cleaning.
12. The landlord provided me with an invoice for the cleaning of the property. I am satisfied that the cleaning that was completed was required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount awarded is proven.
13. The landlord also asked for four weeks rent to 22 October as compensation for failure to clean the property. I do not award this as the landlord had possession of the property during this time and the landlord had the property staged for sale after the tenants left and sold the property in early November. The landlord’s claim for rent until the 22 October is dismissed.
Water
14. The landlord’s claim for water of $106.42 is proven as the landlord provide the final water reading and the outstanding Watercare bill owed by the tenants.
Filing fee
15. As the landlord has been successful in their application the landlord is awarded the filing fee.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 4
[NAME]
01 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5019388 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 provided proof of the property's cleanliness issues through inspection photographs.
- The landlord presented an invoice for necessary cleaning, which was deemed reasonable.
- The landlord showed the final water reading and the outstanding Watercare bill, proving the water claim.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not attend the hearing and did not seek an adjournment.
- The tenant claimed the property was cleaner at the end than at the start, but evidence contradicted this.
- The tenant argued for compensation for repairs they made, but these claims were not proven.
- The tenant stated there was no hot water and the house was moldy and damp, but these claims were not substantiated.
- The tenant claimed the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, but this was not proven.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant's claims were dismissed for non-attendance, while the landlord's claim for cleaning costs was allowed.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the tenant left the rental property in a reasonably clean state and whether the landlord was entitled to cleaning costs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant's claims were dismissed because they did not attend the hearing. The landlord's claim for cleaning costs was allowed because the property was left in an untidy state.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant was expected to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state upon termination of the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the claims, and for the landlord who brought the cleaning claim.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For tenants, it means that failing to attend a hearing can result in dismissal of claims. For landlords, it means that they can seek cleaning costs if the property is left in an untidy state.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included inspection photographs showing the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy.