What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colleirs

How much money was awarded in case 5266659?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266659?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12594804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colleirs

How much money was awarded in case 5266659?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266659?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12594804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Rangitahi Street, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266659 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266659 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,028.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colleirs New Zealand Limited $2,028.00, calculated as shown in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

Mr Van Helsdingen, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 636, was called, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 12 February 2025, when the landlord finally evicted the tenant.

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.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord said that, during the eviction process, the tenant was permitted to collect his belongings after leaving, that the tenant returned to take the items he wanted and left the rest of his belongings at the property. After receiving complaints from the local District Council about the rubbish left at the property, the landlord arranged to have the tenant’s large items and other rubbish removed from the outside of the property.
The landlord provided a total of 7 photographs of the items left outside the property by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The photographs, which the landlord said were taken by the District Council, showed small rubbish items left in the back door entrance, a couch, 3 mattresses, a broken bike, table, bed base, fridge and many other items left in the side garden, tyres and an old BBQ left at the side of the house, 3-4 couches, a bed base, 2 lawn mowers, a fridge/freezer, dehumidifier, carrier box and an old rug/carpet left in front of the garage, a mattress and bag of clothing left at the other side of the house, garden waste left at the side of the house with small pieces of rubbish strewn throughout the dirt, and 2 couches, a mattress, plastic box, baby stroller, old paint pot and many other rubbish items left in the back garden.
The landlord claimed $10.323.55 to remove all the rubbish left by the tenant and provided an invoice in this amount.
The invoice provided for the rubbish removal showed the contractors attended the property on 12 March 2025, 18 March 2025 and on 1 April 2025. On 12 March 2025 and on 18 March 2025, the invoice claimed 26.75 hours were worked by 2 labourers on each of these dates, being 13.37 hours per worker on each of these dates. I find this number of hours worked in one day, as claimed, to be excessive. On 1 April 2025, the hours worked removing the rubbish were 11 hours with 2 workers, being 5.5 hours each worker. The hourly rate for each worker was $70.00 GST exclusive, which would be $80.50 per hour GST inclusive. I find this hourly rate for rubbish removal to also be excessive compared to other commercial rubbish removal rates the Tribunal sees. On each occasion that the workers attended the property, there was also a separate charge for PPE to do the work. The amounts claimed for PPE ranged from $207.50 on 12 March 2025 to $277.50 on 18 March 2025 (both had the same hours claimed for each of these days however), to $342.00 on 1 April 2025 when the workers worked more than half the hours of the other 2 occasions. I find the amounts claimed for PPE are inconsistent and unreliable and so do not consider the claims for PPE, as they are not proven.
The landlord said they could not confirm whether there was travel time involved in the hours claimed in the invoice to dump the rubbish. The landlord did not know the total cubic metres of rubbish removed and disposed of, to assist with the assessment of whether the amount claimed for rubbish removal was reasonable.
The invoice provided did not distinguish between labour hours and tip fees, nor was there a separate receipt provided for tip fees. Confirmation of the tip fees with receipts for these would have provided independent confirmation about the reasonableness of the cost claimed. As such, it is difficult to determine how the charges were calculated.
I find the cost claimed for rubbish removal of $10,323.55 to be highly excessive, especially after reviewing the limited photographic evidence provided.
I note a landlord’s obligation to mitigate their loss pursuant to section 49 of the RTA. In this context, in my view, that involves obtaining quotes from different removal companies to remove the rubbish and going with the most cost- effective rubbish removal cost quoted. There was no evidence of the landlord mitigating their loss in this way in this situation, however.
In the absence of evidence about the volume of rubbish removed or confirmation of the amount for tip fees by way of receipts for this, I find a more reasonable and proportionate amount to remove and dispose of the rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy to be $2,000.00. I consider this amount to be at the upper range of what is reasonable, given the photographs and evidence provided. I consider the award should be at the upper end of the range of what is reasonable given the number of larger items left by the tenant. Therefore, I award $2,000.00 to the landlord to remove the rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal is very familiar with these types of claims, and I am satisfied that the amount awarded is reasonable for the work that was completed.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colliers New Zealand Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266659 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,028.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colleirs New Zealand Limited $2,028.00, calculated as shown in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

Mr Van Helsdingen, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 636, was called, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 12 February 2025, when the landlord finally evicted the tenant.

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.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord said that, during the eviction process, the tenant was permitted to collect his belongings after leaving, that the tenant returned to take the items he wanted and left the rest of his belongings at the property. After receiving complaints from the local District Council about the rubbish left at the property, the landlord arranged to have the tenant’s large items and other rubbish removed from the outside of the property.
The landlord provided a total of 7 photographs of the items left outside the property by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The photographs, which the landlord said were taken by the District Council, showed small rubbish items left in the back door entrance, a couch, 3 mattresses, a broken bike, table, bed base, fridge and many other items left in the side garden, tyres and an old BBQ left at the side of the house, 3-4 couches, a bed base, 2 lawn mowers, a fridge/freezer, dehumidifier, carrier box and an old rug/carpet left in front of the garage, a mattress and bag of clothing left at the other side of the house, garden waste left at the side of the house with small pieces of rubbish strewn throughout the dirt, and 2 couches, a mattress, plastic box, baby stroller, old paint pot and many other rubbish items left in the back garden.
The landlord claimed $10.323.55 to remove all the rubbish left by the tenant and provided an invoice in this amount.
The invoice provided for the rubbish removal showed the contractors attended the property on 12 March 2025, 18 March 2025 and on 1 April 2025. On 12 March 2025 and on 18 March 2025, the invoice claimed 26.75 hours were worked by 2 labourers on each of these dates, being 13.37 hours per worker on each of these dates. I find this number of hours worked in one day, as claimed, to be excessive. On 1 April 2025, the hours worked removing the rubbish were 11 hours with 2 workers, being 5.5 hours each worker. The hourly rate for each worker was $70.00 GST exclusive, which would be $80.50 per hour GST inclusive. I find this hourly rate for rubbish removal to also be excessive compared to other commercial rubbish removal rates the Tribunal sees. On each occasion that the workers attended the property, there was also a separate charge for PPE to do the work. The amounts claimed for PPE ranged from $207.50 on 12 March 2025 to $277.50 on 18 March 2025 (both had the same hours claimed for each of these days however), to $342.00 on 1 April 2025 when the workers worked more than half the hours of the other 2 occasions. I find the amounts claimed for PPE are inconsistent and unreliable and so do not consider the claims for PPE, as they are not proven.
The landlord said they could not confirm whether there was travel time involved in the hours claimed in the invoice to dump the rubbish. The landlord did not know the total cubic metres of rubbish removed and disposed of, to assist with the assessment of whether the amount claimed for rubbish removal was reasonable.
The invoice provided did not distinguish between labour hours and tip fees, nor was there a separate receipt provided for tip fees. Confirmation of the tip fees with receipts for these would have provided independent confirmation about the reasonableness of the cost claimed. As such, it is difficult to determine how the charges were calculated.
I find the cost claimed for rubbish removal of $10,323.55 to be highly excessive, especially after reviewing the limited photographic evidence provided.
I note a landlord’s obligation to mitigate their loss pursuant to section 49 of the RTA. In this context, in my view, that involves obtaining quotes from different removal companies to remove the rubbish and going with the most cost- effective rubbish removal cost quoted. There was no evidence of the landlord mitigating their loss in this way in this situation, however.
In the absence of evidence about the volume of rubbish removed or confirmation of the amount for tip fees by way of receipts for this, I find a more reasonable and proportionate amount to remove and dispose of the rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy to be $2,000.00. I consider this amount to be at the upper range of what is reasonable, given the photographs and evidence provided. I consider the award should be at the upper end of the range of what is reasonable given the number of larger items left by the tenant. Therefore, I award $2,000.00 to the landlord to remove the rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal is very familiar with these types of claims, and I am satisfied that the amount awarded is reasonable for the work that was completed.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s]/O Colliers New Zealand Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266659 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Rangitahi Street, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266659 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Rangitahi Street, Otorohanga, Otorohanga 3900

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.