Tenant Wins Cleaning Costs Reimbursement from Landlord
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the landlord must reimburse the tenants for cleaning costs because the property was not reasonably clean when the tenants moved in. The Tribunal considered photographic evidence and testimony from the tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to reimbursement for cleaning costs if the landlord fails to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a landlord must provide the rental property in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of a tenancy. In this case, the Tribunal found the landlord did not meet this responsibility.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenants for cleaning costs incurred due to unclean conditions at move-in.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Auckland found that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, ordering the landlord to reimburse the tenants for cleaning costs incurred.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 1
[2025] NZTT 5099530
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenants
RESPONDENT: [redacted] [NAME]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] must pay [NAME] $810.01 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Description Tenant Compensation: House cleaning $598.00 Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & service call charge $185.01 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $810.01 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $810.01
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. [NAME] is the support person for the tenants.
3. [NAME] is the property manager. Ms [NAME] is assisting [NAME].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 2
Dispute overview
4. The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024.
5. The tenants sought reimbursement of cleaning costs ($883) incurred because the property was allegedly unclean upon move-in. The landlord disputed the claim, arguing that the property was professionally cleaned twice before tenancy commencement.
Tenants' Arguments and Submissions
6. The tenants raised several specific concerns about the cleanliness of the property during the hearing, supported by photographic evidence and their testimony. Photos were taken on 22 August 2024.
7. Kitchen Areas: a. Dead bugs and dirt in drawers and cabinets. b. Dirty toe kicks (baseboards) under kitchen cabinets, appearing either grimy
or chipped. c. Dishwasher filter covered in mould, with dishes left inside from the previous
tenant (noted during a prior viewing and still present at move-in). 8. Bathrooms:
a. Dust-covered shelves in the bathroom linen cupboard. b. Dirty light switches and a broken toilet seat (repaired by the tenants at their
own expense). 9. Blinds:
a. Four bedroom blinds were heavily soiled, with some appearing to have food stains and dead insects (photos showed only two blinds initially; later supplemented with evidence for all four).
10. General Filth: a. Dust on light bulbs and window sills (e.g., lounge window frames). b. Mould on a power point in one of the children’s bedrooms. c. Blackened grime on bathroom switches and walls.
11. They argued the landlord did not “… provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness” under Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986— italic mine.
12. Communication Attempts: a. [NAME] sent a text message on the evening before move-in (22
August 2024) and called the property manager at 9 AM on move-in day but received no response. They proceeded to hire their own cleaners due to urgency (three young children and needed unpacking).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 3
13. Reimbursement Sought: a. Full reimbursement of $883 for two cleaning invoices ([COMPANY] for $598.00 and [NAME] for $285 (including service call charge) for 4 blinds).
Landlord's Arguments and Submissions
14. [NAME], on behalf of the landlord, disputed the tenants' claims and made the following key arguments:
15. Property Was Professionally Cleaned Before Tenancy a. [NAME] submitted that the property was cleaned twice before the
tenants moved in: o 25 June 2024 (Exit clean): Conducted after the previous tenant
vacated. o 15 August 2024 (Pre-tenancy clean): Done a week before the tenants
moved in (23 August 2024). b. [NAME] argued that the property was handed over in a "reasonably
clean and tidy" state, as required by tenancy laws. 16. Tenants Did Not Allow Time for Landlord to Rectify Issues
a. [NAME] acknowledged minor issues (e.g., dusty toe kicks) but claimed: o These would have been addressed if the tenants had waited for the
landlord’s cleaners. o The tenants unilaterally hired their own cleaners without giving the
landlord a reasonable opportunity to fix the problems. o [NAME] sent a text on 22 August 2024 (evening before move-in)
and called on 23 August, but [NAME] stated he was in a meeting and missed the communication.
17. Dispute Over Evidence (Blinds & Photos) a. The landlord contested the tenants' claim for [NAME] costs ($285),
arguing: o The initial application only included photos of two blinds, while the
invoice charged for cleaning four blinds. o [NAME] questioned the validity of the additional photos provided
later, stating:
"We have no idea what they're for. They're just photos of blinds." 18. In fairness to the landlord, [NAME]’s submission on this point is forceful.
Possible Settlement 19. I urged both parties to resolve the dispute because this case could be settled. I
adjourned the hearing briefly so [NAME] could take instructions before presenting a settlement proposal.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 4
20. Upon reconvening, [NAME] initially offered $500 as a goodwill gesture, citing prior concessions such as reduced rent and floor recoating. He then increased his offer to $600 after the tenants countered with $740.50, reducing the [NAME] cost by half due to initially providing photos for only two blinds).The tenants declined the counter-offer.
My view
21. The photos and invoices substantiate that the landlord did not provide the property in a "reasonably state of cleanliness" under Section 45(1)(a) RTA,
22. In my view, the word “provide” under s45(1)(a) RTA refers to the time of moving in. It does not imply or mean “after” the tenants have taken possession. This is because the tenants are legally responsible for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy after taking possession of the property under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA.
23. Accordingly, I reject [NAME]’s submissions that the tenants should have waited for the landlord’s cleaners to clean the premises.
24. I am not suggesting that [NAME] is at fault here because he instructed his contractor to clean the property before the tenants took possession of it.
25. However, based on the evidence I have observed, [NAME]’s cleaner did not seem to have cleaned the property to a reasonable standard, especially considering the mould, dead bugs, and dishwasher filter. The two-month vacancy and the lack of response to the tenants' complaints further support this.
Conclusion
26. I find that the landlord did not provide the tenants with the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
27. Accordingly, the tenants should be reimbursed for the cleaning costs. a. [COMPANY] invoice for $598. b. [NAME] ($185.01): This has been reduced by $99.99 because the
tenants provided evidence for only two blinds. c. Total: $783.01.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 5
Filing fee
28. [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
M Kan
28 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 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 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5099530 7
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: Tenants' Arguments and Submissions
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenants provided photographic evidence and testimony showing dead bugs and dirt in kitchen drawers and cabinets.
- The tenants showed that the dishwasher filter was covered in mould and had dishes from the previous tenant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's argument that the tenants should have waited for their cleaners was rejected.
- The landlord's claim that the property was professionally cleaned twice before the tenancy did not prevent the finding of unreasonableness.
- The landlord's argument that the tenants unilaterally hired cleaners without giving an opportunity to fix issues was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenants for cleaning costs incurred due to unclean conditions at move-in.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should reimburse the tenants for cleaning costs because the property was unclean when they moved in.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenants because the property was not reasonably clean at move-in, as evidenced by photographs and testimony.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 45(1)(a), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the property was not reasonably clean at move-in, as evidenced by photographs and testimony.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to seek reimbursement for cleaning costs if the property was not reasonably clean at move-in.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence and testimony from the tenants mattered in this decision.