Tenant Wins Full Bond Recovery in Cleanliness Dispute
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, the tenant successfully recovered the full bond as the premises were deemed to be left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, despite the landlord's claim for cleaning costs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to recover the full bond if the premises are left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the landlord's responsibilities, including providing the rental property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and maintaining it in a reasonable state of repair.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for cleaning costs, finding the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for cleaning costs, ruling that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, thus entitling the tenant to recover the full bond.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5091493 1
The
[2025] NZTT 5091493, 5103468
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 immediately apportioned as follows:
[The landlord/s]: $0.00
[The tenant/s]: $1,680.00
Reasons
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The tenancy has come to an end. The Tenant wants to recover the full bond. The Landlord wants $240 for the cost of cleaning the premises.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5091493 2
3. The Landlord says that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Relying on an “Outgoing Condition Report” dated 13 November 2024, it says that:
a. Kitchen cupboards were smudged and dirty.
b. The underside of a kitchen tap was dirty.
c. The oven and oven door required cleaning.
d. A kitchen window sill was sticky.
e. The kitchen exhaust fan was contaminated with fat and dirty.
f. A shower tap was broken.
g. A bathroom window screen was dirty.
h. The gardens required weeding.
4. The Landlord therefore seeks to recover $240, which it says was the cost of hiring cleaners – [COMPANY] – to return the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
5. The Tenant says that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
Assessment
6. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy:
…in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
7. The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
8. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
9. The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the Landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the Landlord who must prove that
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5091493 3
the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the Landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
10. In submitting that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, the Landlord relied heavily on the Outgoing Condition Report. The overall tenor of the Outgoing Condition Report is that the premises were in a clean and tidy state. For example, at page 2 the Report states “The tenant has left the property in good condition, but it requires light cleaning inside and some weeding needed at the garden beds”. Despite this statement that the premises were left in good condition, the Report writer goes on to say “we will arrange for a cleaner, and the cost will be deducted from the tenant’s bond”.
11. The Report then goes on the consider the condition of various areas of the premises, with the Report Writer noting each area with a green “Y” if that area is in good condition or a red “N” if it is not. The various areas of the premises are predominantly marked green – i.e. in good condition.
12. Parts of the premises, including those listed in paragraph 3 of this decision, were marked as red – i.e. requiring further cleaning. I have seen photographs of those areas provided by the Landlord. I agree that those photographs show that those areas were not in immaculate condition.
13. However, a landlord can usually expect to perform some cleaning if they want to return the premises to a high state of cleanliness. In this case, the extent of the cleaning required was described in the Outgoing Condition Report as being “light cleaning”. That appears to be a correct assessment to me, and I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proven that areas set out in paragraph 3 were so dirty or unclean that the premises were not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. The Landlord’s claim to recover the cost of cleaning the interior of the premises is dismissed.
14. The Landlord is entitled to recover the cost of weeding the garden. The photographs provided show that the garden was overgrown with weeds and the Tenant had an obligation under the Tenancy Agreement to keep the garden free of weeds. The Landlord’s representative advised that the weeding took one hour, at a cost of $60 per hour. I award that cost to the Landlord.
Suppression and filing fee
15. Both parties had have some success, so I order suppression of name and identifying details for both. I make no order for the refund of filing fees, as each party has been at least partly successful in their claims.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5091493 4
[NAME] 11 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5091493 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.
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].
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/
Reasons
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant successfully argued that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The Outgoing Condition Report indicated that the property was in good condition, requiring only light cleaning.
- The photographs provided by the landlord, while showing areas not immaculate, did not prove the premises were unreasonably dirty.
- The landlord was entitled to recover the cost for weeding the garden, as photographs showed it was overgrown.
- The tenancy agreement included an obligation for the tenant to keep the garden free of weeds.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord failed to prove that the tenant breached their obligations regarding the cleanliness of the interior of the premises.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant is entitled to recover the full bond as the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, affecting the tenant's ability to recover the full bond.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, dismissing the landlord's claim for cleaning costs. This was based on the evidence presented, including an outgoing condition report and photographs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45, was applied to determine the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the interpretation of what constitutes a 'reasonably clean and tidy condition' based on the evidence provided.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case, allowing them to recover the full bond.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
This means that tenants in similar situations can recover their full bond if they can demonstrate that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and an outgoing condition report were crucial pieces of evidence in this case.