Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5223791 — Rent arrears
Decided 12 Nov 2025 · Published 12 Nov 2025 · Application 5223791
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay Ruby Property Enterprises Limited (as agent for Issac Land Holdings Ltd) $525.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ruby Property Enterprises Limited (as agent for Issac Land Holdings Ltd): $525.43 [The tenant/s]: $2,194.57
Reasons
Background
- This was a fixed term tenancy. It was due to end on 4 March 2025. At the end of the tenancy [The tenant/s] requested a few more days to remove his belongings. The tenancy ended on 8 March 2025.
- There were originally three tenants on the tenancy. Two tenants were released during the tenancy, leaving only [The tenant/s] at the end.
- On 25 March, Ruby Properties sent [The tenant/s] a copy of the exit inspection, and a quote for gardening work. [The tenant/s] responded, seeking clarification of some of the comments on the report and some of the work quoted on the gardening invoice.
- Ms Collie (Ruby Properties) replied on 28 March with some further comments about cleaning. She stated that professional cleaning was underway and that they were “waiting for the second gardening quote”.
- [The tenant/s] disputed the cleaning and gardening costs. He filed a Tenancy Tribunal application on 3 April 2025 seeking refund of the bond.
- The tenant’s application was scheduled for a hearing on 10 June 2025. On 5 June, the landlord filed a cross-application. On the morning of the 10 June hearing, Ruby Properties sought an adjournment on the grounds that the property manager dealing with the matter had a medical emergency. The adjournment was granted.
- The hearing of both applications took place by video conference before me on 1 September 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Collie and Ms Willems represented the landlord. Rent arrears
- [The tenant/s] did not dispute the claim for rent arrears. Cleaning
- The landlord seeks $569.25 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy, per an invoice from AquaClean.
- Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 1
- What amounts to “reasonably clean and tidy” is not defined in the law. People can have genuinely different, honestly held, subjective views about what amounts to generally clean and tidy.
- Some general principles are: 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) a. Reasonably clean and tidy is a lower standard than hotel room or show home. b. Reasonably clean and tidy takes into consideration the overall ‘picture’ of the property, but also whether any particular areas were overlooked or not cleaned sufficiently. c. Assessment of the premises is not based on a “before and after” comparison, but the entry inspection photos are relevant in the context of considering what the landlord believed to be “reasonably clean and tidy”.
- [The tenant/s] provided photographs showing the property after he had finished cleaning.
- Ruby Property provided photographs taken at the final inspection, which they carried out on 5 February. The photographs show [The tenant/s]’s belongings in the garage, which he returned to the property and removed. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that he didn’t do any more cleaning after 5 February.
- Ruby Property’s photographs show that [The tenant/s] overlooked several drawers, probably in the kitchen, which have some items in them and need to be wiped out. Part of the toilet floor needs to be cleaned, possibly where a toilet brush holder had been. The cooktop needed some more attention.
- Overall the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy but a small amount of extra cleaning is justified for the items discussed above. I will award two hours of cleaning at the rate charged by AquaClean per their invoice ($47 plus GST) plus $25 (plus GST) for travel. Gardening
- The standard that applies here is the same as cleaning. Gardens that the tenant is responsible for must be left reasonably tidy and “clean” (weed-free).
- [The tenant/s] did not deny that part of the garden at this property was left somewhat overgrown at the end of the tenancy.
- [The tenant/s] said that: a. The property has a very large garden that borders on that borders onto a paddock. b. The garden has no weedmat, mulch, or any other sort of weed suppression. c. It was extremely difficult to prevent grass from getting established in this garden. d. They raised this issue during the tenancy: i. On 24 July 2024, one of the (then) tenants sent Ruby Properties an email explaining the problem with grass in this garden and seeking assistance. The tenant commented: I’ve actually never seen grass so obvious in garden beds, usually would expect weeds, but this is actual grass, the owner must have known this was a possibility, we only expected to do weeding – something different than this. Will try our best. Ms Moore (Ruby Properties) replied: I’m not quite sure what can be done about this, but we can ask the owner if they would put mulch on the beds. ii. There was no further communication from Ruby Properties about this problem. On 5 December 2024, another of the (then) tenants sent a follow up message: The issue I’m referring to is indeed the same as previously mentioned. While the gardens were clear when we moved in, it seems there is no preventative measure in place, such as weed matting, which is common in many gardens. The problem isn’t just weeds but paddock grass encroaching from the bordering paddock. This goes beyond the usual upkeep. [...] Would the owner be willing to assist with the cost of weed mats and spray? Ms Moore replied that the owner was willing to “spray the perimeter” but “they don’t like weedmat as they don’t find it effective and it just gets very messy”. e. Landlord would not allow the tenants to use weedpray on this area.
- The first quote that Ruby Properties sent to [The tenant/s] for garden tidy up was provided by the Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust, which I understand is part of the owner’s organisation. That quote was for the quite extraordinary amount of $1200 plus GST, representing 16 hours of work at $75 plus GST per hour. Ruby Properties obtained a second quote from Ace Outdoors for $713.00.
- Tenants must maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, it is well established that there are limits on the scope and extent of what a tenant is required to do. Tenants are not expected to wash the exterior of the house, or clear gutters, or look after trees. The governing principle is what is reasonable.
- [The tenant/s] (and the other tenants) knew that this was a large garden and that they would have to put in some work to keep it tidy and free from weeds. However they did not know, and they could not have known, that they would face a constant battle with grass seed blowing in from the neighbouring paddock and that the landlord would not provide (or even allow) any measures to assist with controlling that problem. The garden clearly needs some sort of ground cover or heavy mulch.
- [The tenant/s]’s evidence shows that the tenants took all reasonable steps to keep this area under control, and to raise the problem and seek assistance from the landlord.
- My finding is that the requirement to keep this large garden free from grass using only the tenant’s labour and gardening tools is beyond what is reasonable. The request for assistance was appropriate, and, given that none was forthcoming, [The tenant/s] is not liable for the inevitable deterioration of that part of the property.
- Therefore, the claim for gardening costs is dismissed. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
- Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and I will award the filing fee to both parties. 2
- The tenant sought name suppression.
- The Tribunal must, on application, grant name suppression to any party that has been “substantially successful” in the proceedings. 3
- I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was substantially successful in the proceedings. [The tenant/s] never disputed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. His dispute was about the cleaning and gardening claims, and I have largely found in his favour in respect of those parts of his claim.
- It is noted that [The tenant/s] filed a lengthy written submission the day before the hearing on 1 September. In that document [The tenant/s] stated that he was seeking costs (lost wages in preparing for and attending the hearing) and exemplary damages.
- At the hearing I advised [The tenant/s] that these claims were not part of his application, so if he wanted to pursue them, I would have to formally amend his application and a further hearing would be required. [The tenant/s] elected to not proceed with the exemplary damages claims.
- The Tribunal has no power to award costs, except in certain limited circumstances, none of which applies in this instance. 4
- The landlord will receive $525.43 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.