Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5353521 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 17 Feb 2026 · Published 17 Feb 2026 · Application 5353521
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
C Price
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- [The tenant/s], representing the tenants, and [The property manager/s], representing the landlord attended the video conference hearing.
- The tenants have applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 27 August 2024. Burden of proof and evidence
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Rubbish collection costs
- The tenants claimed $703.96 to reimburse payments they made for curb side collection of rubbish from April 2023 to June 2024. The tenants provided copies of invoices from [Rubbish Company] paid by them for the period claimed.
- The tenants pointed to a clause in the tenancy agreement which specified their outgoings, and which they said did not include waste management collection fees. The tenants submitted it was their landlord’s responsibility to pay for this, as they became aware of this from speaking with others once they left the property and moved to Auckland.
- The landlord said that the [City Council] l did not provide red bins to them prior to 1 July 2024, when the red bin supply was rolled out across the city, along with green waste bins. The landlord indicated that the time frame for rubbish bin rollouts differed as between different cities, and Auckland was different from [City].
- The landlord said that, at the start of the entry inspection report provided to the tenants, they spelled out that the landlord provided a yellow bin and a blue bin, both for recycling, but that the tenants were responsible for purchasing rubbish bags from the Council or for their own red bins. The landlord provided a copy of this initial or entry inspection with these comments.
- The landlord said that, if the tenants had purchased black rubbish bags, they could have filled them with rubbish and had them collected from the curb side by the local Council, without further charge. The landlord also said the tenants could have hired red bins, and then left any filled hired red bin on the curb, also for collection without any further charge.
- The tenants said they were not disputing the container used but the service itself, which they say should have been the landlord’s expense. The tenants said they not only hired a red bin, which cost $19.00 for the hire fee, but also paid for a collection service privately on top of this.
- The landlord said they are only responsible for paying for rates, which they did, and for supplying to the tenants any red bins or other bins or rubbish bags they were provided by the Council, which they said they also did (yellow and blue bins were provided and on 1 July 2024 a red bin from the Council). Once the landlord has provided to the tenants what the Council has provided to them for rubbish bins for the rates payments, the landlord said it is then over to the tenant to be responsible for rubbish collection or disposal costs.
- The tenants disputed this and said the landlord should have reimbursed them for the rubbish collection service costs they paid for.
- The tenants clarified that they did not recall whether they asked the property manager or discussed with the landlord what to do about waste management collection at the start of the tenancy when they had a query about this. The property manager said he wished the tenants had discussed this with him at the start of the tenancy as he would have clarified the waste collection service matters then and could have discussed any other possible options with the owner at that time. The landlord said they did not agree to incur any rubbish collection fee charges incurred by the tenants.
- Whilst the tenants have highlighted that the outgoings clause in the tenancy agreement does not specify them being responsible for rubbish collection service fees, tenants have further obligations pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) that are not always specified in tenancy agreements, but which remain tenant obligations legally.
- To this end, section 40(1)(c) RTA provides that a tenant is obliged to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes an obligation to clear up and dispose of their rubbish on a regular basis during the tenancy, paying to do so if necessary.
- Landlords are responsible for maintaining the property generally and for providing any rubbish bins provided to them by a local Council to a tenant, for collection by the Council, as paid for by the rates paid by the landlord.
- If there are no rubbish bins or bags supplied by a local Council to a landlord, despite the landlord paying the rates, then a tenant is responsible for the cost of rubbish bags or hiring their own bin.
- The landlord said that, had the tenant bought and used black rubbish bags, or had they only hired a red bin (not paid extra for collection service of the red bin privately), then the Council contractor would have collected such a black rubbish bag or hired red bin, without any further charge to the tenants. The landlord said they provided all the bins that were provided to them by the Council, to the tenants, with payment by the landlord of the rates. As such, the landlord said there was no obligation for them to pay for waste management collection fees incurred by the tenants, as the tenants could have used the black rubbish bag collection by the Council.
- A party is required to mitigate any loss pursuant to section 49 RTA.
- The tenant said they could not recall checking with or asking the property manager about the waste management collection situation before they subscribed to a contract with [Rubbish Company] for hiring a red bin and for collection service costs for this hired red bin.
- The landlord’s evidence that they provided the bins they got from the [City Council] to the tenants as and when these bins became available from the Council, was not contradicted by the tenants. The tenants clarified they received a red bin from the landlord around 1 July 2024 when the landlord received a red bin from the Council with its city-wide rollout of red bins on 1 July 2024. The tenants also confirmed their claim was to June 2024, just prior to when they received the red bin from the landlord. The tenants did not dispute that they had received a yellow and a blue bin for recycling at the start of the tenancy.
- From the evidence provided, I find the landlord provided a yellow and blue bin for recycling at the start of the tenancy, that the landlord notified the tenants in the initial/entry inspection report comments that they were to purchase their own black bags or hire a red bin, that the landlord paid the rates and provided a red bin on 1 July 2024, as soon as a red bin was provided to them by the Council as part of their rollout. As the landlord provided all the bins provided to them to the tenants as soon as each bin was available to the landlord, and paid the rates for a collection service by the Council of any black rubbish bag or hired red bin used by the tenants, I find the landlord has met its obligations in terms of rubbish collection and any remaining rubbish disposal costs are to be borne by the tenants.
- As the tenants are then responsible for any remaining rubbish disposal costs, further to section 40(1)(c) RTA, I dismiss the tenants’ claim against the landlord for these costs. Filing fee
- As I dismiss the tenants’ compensation claim, I also must dismiss the tenants’ claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression
- Both parties requested name suppression. Given the application is dismissed, given the tenancy ended a while ago and the parties finished the tenancy with a very good relationship with each other, as was the evidence from both of them, and given other evidence, I find the parties’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) RTA.