What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125754?

The tribunal order states: Dylan De Rungs must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Lynette Karen

How much money was awarded in case 5125754?

Cleaning: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,594.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125754?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125754?

The tribunal order states: Dylan De Rungs must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Lynette Karen

How much money was awarded in case 5125754?

Cleaning: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,594.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125754?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Bredins Line, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125754 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125754 — net $4,271.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning costs	$1,650.00	Cleaning costs
Rubbish removal & grounds restoration	$2,594.00	Rubbish removal & grounds restoration
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,271.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,271.00

A hearing of this matter was convened on 9 April 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.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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 (“RTA”).

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.

The standard for “reasonably clean and tidy” does not require professional cleaning but does require a level of cleanliness that an ordinary person would consider acceptable. Damages that arise from neglect, deliberate acts, or careless behaviour—rather than fair wear and tear—can also be subject to compensation.

Having considered the photographic evidence, inspection reports and the invoices submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant did not comply with their obligations under the RTA at the end of the tenancy.

The final inspection report, supported by photographic evidence, clearly indicates that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean or tidy condition. Floors and surfaces throughout the property were dusty and dirty, with rubbish left in various areas. Cupboards and drawers had not been thoroughly cleaned, and kitchen benchtops showed visible residue. Skirting boards, walls, window frames, and glass panels were all unclean, with cobwebs and accumulated dirt clearly present. The shower unit was also inadequately cleaned, with significant soap scum and grime visible around the drain and floor area.

The external grounds were in a particularly poor state. The lawns and gardens were severely overgrown, and the yard was strewn with rubbish. Photographs show cut tree branches dumped in various areas, visible signs of rubbish being burnt, and a metal barrel left behind. A tree had been defaced with a face carved into it, which constitutes damage. Additional items left behind by the tenant included wooden drawers near the shed and visible damage to the shed where a section had been cut out.

The evidence supports a clear breach of the tenant’s obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to take reasonable care of the premises. The condition of both the interior and exterior at the end of the tenancy fell well below the expected standard.

The invoices provided for the cleaning ($1,650) and outdoor work including rubbish removal ($2,594) are consistent with the scope of the issues presented in the photographs and inspection report. I find these costs to be reasonable and necessary to restore the property to a reasonable standard.

There is no evidence to suggest the charges are inflated or that the work was unnecessary. I accept the landlord’s claim in full.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125754 — net $4,271.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning costs	$1,650.00	Cleaning costs
Rubbish removal & grounds restoration	$2,594.00	Rubbish removal & grounds restoration
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,271.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,271.00

Order

Dylan De Rungs must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Lynette Karen Forman $4,271.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

A hearing of this matter was convened on 9 April 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.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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 (“RTA”).
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.
The standard for “reasonably clean and tidy” does not require professional cleaning but does require a level of cleanliness that an ordinary person would consider acceptable. Damages that arise from neglect, deliberate acts, or careless behaviour—rather than fair wear and tear—can also be subject to compensation.
Having considered the photographic evidence, inspection reports and the invoices submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant did not comply with their obligations under the RTA at the end of the tenancy.
The final inspection report, supported by photographic evidence, clearly indicates that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean or tidy condition. Floors and surfaces throughout the property were dusty and dirty, with rubbish left in various areas. Cupboards and drawers had not been thoroughly cleaned, and kitchen benchtops showed visible residue. Skirting boards, walls, window frames, and glass panels were all unclean, with cobwebs and accumulated dirt clearly present. The shower unit was also inadequately cleaned, with significant soap scum and grime visible around the drain and floor area.
The external grounds were in a particularly poor state. The lawns and gardens were severely overgrown, and the yard was strewn with rubbish. Photographs show cut tree branches dumped in various areas, visible signs of rubbish being burnt, and a metal barrel left behind. A tree had been defaced with a face carved into it, which constitutes damage. Additional items left behind by the tenant included wooden drawers near the shed and visible damage to the shed where a section had been cut out.
The evidence supports a clear breach of the tenant’s obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to take reasonable care of the premises. The condition of both the interior and exterior at the end of the tenancy fell well below the expected standard.
The invoices provided for the cleaning ($1,650) and outdoor work including rubbish removal ($2,594) are consistent with the scope of the issues presented in the photographs and inspection report. I find these costs to be reasonable and necessary to restore the property to a reasonable standard.
There is no evidence to suggest the charges are inflated or that the work was unnecessary. I accept the landlord’s claim in full.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125754 — Cleanliness at 5 Bredins Line, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125754 — Cleanliness at 5 Bredins Line, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions