Tribunal Reduces Rubbish Removal Claim in Tenancy Dispute
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, the landlord's claim for rubbish removal was reduced, while claims for wall repairs and lawn work were upheld. The tenant did not attend the hearing but submitted written statements.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for the cost of repairs beyond fair wear and tear, provided the landlord proves the damage and the tenant fails to disprove it.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal reduced the landlord's claim for rubbish removal and awarded damages for wall repairs and lawn work.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Manukau reduced the landlord's claim for rubbish removal and awarded damages for wall repairs and lawn work. The tenant did not attend the hearing but submitted written statements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154577 1
[2025] NZTT 5154577
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MANUKAU | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI MANUKAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $1,655.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Repairs to walls $154.49 Lawns and garden work $600.00 Rubbish removal $1,095.00 Total award $1,849.49 Bond $194.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $1,655.49
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing in person on 28 May 2025. The tenant did not attend due to childcare issues. The tenant indicated, however, that she wanted to provide the Tribunal with her views in writing. After hearing from the landlord, I called the tenant. I also received an email from the tenant during the hearing.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154577 2
2. The tenancy ended on 20 November 2024. An exit inspection was performed on 28 November 2024. The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 3 February 2025 for the cost of repairs to the walls and doors, rubbish removal, and grass cutting.
3. At the hearing, the landlord withdrew a claim for repairs to a wall (shown in photograph 84 of the exit inspection report) totalling $64.77.
4. There was further damage to the walls shown in photographs 81 and 99-100 of Photograph 81 shows a large hole in an internal door. Photograph 100 shows a big hole in a wall. The cost of repair totals $154.49. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
5. The landlord claimed $1,641.20 for rubbish removal, $600.00 for grass cutting, and $306.17 for tyre removal.
6. The tenant did not dispute the claim for damage but did dispute the claim for rubbish removal, on the basis this included the cost of removing several large trees. The tenant says the trees were present when her tenancy started. At that stage there was no front boundary fence. The landlord left the trees in place after the fence was installed. The tenant also disputed the claim for removal of 17 tyres from the premises ($306.17). She said she knew nothing about there being any tyres.
7. The tyres are not visible in the exit inspection photographs. In the absence of any photographic evidence, I find it has not been established that there were tyres that needed to be removed.
8. The landlord said much of the rubbish removal cost was green waste from cutting the lawn, which looks very overgrown in the photographs. The tenant was concerned that the rubbish removal claim included the cost of removing several very large trees in the front garden. These were planted by a neighbour to create a boundary as there was no fence when she moved in. When a fence was installed, the trees were not removed. She advised her tenancy manager who indicated the landlord would deal with the issue.
9. It is unclear whether the rubbish removal cost included the cost of removal of the trees. They are visible in the exit photographs. The landlord was given time after the hearing to clarify the position. No further information has been provided. I anticipate that the landlord would be able to determine from their records whether the trees were removed, and any cost charged to the tenant. In my view, the evidential onus was on the landlord to establish that the trees were not included in the rubbish removal cost, for example, by contacting the tradesperson who performed the garden clearance.
10. The statement of final account gives a quantity of 10 for rubbish removal. I assume this means 10 cubic metres of rubbish had to be removed. It is difficult to estimate what portion of this quantity the trees might have been. They would certainly have been a significant part of the cost. It is necessary to make a
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154577 3
summary adjustment. I reduce the rubbish removal cost by a third and award $1,095.00. I also award $600.00 for cutting the badly overgrown lawns.
11. If either party does have further evidence relevant to this issue, a rehearing application can be made.
12. The bond of $194.00 is refunded to the landlord. I have separately directed the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlord.
[NAME]
10 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154577 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154577 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 landlord proved there was damage to the walls beyond fair wear and tear.
- The tenant did not provide evidence to disprove her responsibility for the damage.
- The cost of removing overgrown lawns was awarded to the landlord.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claim for removing large trees was reduced because it was unclear if they were included in the rubbish removal cost.
- The claim for removing 17 tyres was dismissed due to lack of photographic evidence proving their existence.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision reduced the landlord's claim for rubbish removal and awarded damages for wall repairs and lawn work.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the cost of repairs to walls, lawn work, and rubbish removal at the end of a tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord was entitled to the cost of wall repairs and lawn work, but the claim for rubbish removal was reduced because it included the cost of removing trees that were present at the start of the tenancy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's claim that the cost of removing trees was not the tenant's responsibility since the trees were present at the start of the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they should ensure that any claims for repairs include clear evidence of damage beyond fair wear and tear.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included photographs showing the extent of wall damage and the condition of the lawn and garden at the end of the tenancy.