What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371461 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tāmaki Regeneration Limited $1,666.40 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5371461?

Cleaning: $493.61 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received On 15 October 2025: $135.01 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $1,417.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371461?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371461 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tāmaki Regeneration Limited $1,666.40 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5371461?

Cleaning: $493.61 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received On 15 October 2025: $135.01 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $1,417.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371461?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Leybourne Circle, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371461 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371461 — net $1,666.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,417.80		Rubbish removal
Cleaning: the whole house	$493.61		Cleaning: the whole house
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Payment received on 15 October 2025		$135.01	Payment received on 15 October 2025
Total award	$1,939.41	$135.01
Net award	$1,666.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,666.40

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tāmaki Regeneration Limited $1,666.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $138.00 (3044171-006) to Tāmaki Regeneration Limited immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
Mr Taufa attended on behalf of the landlord. When the hearing commenced Ms Shaw was not present. I attempted to contact her by telephone and was unable to reach her. I left a voicemail advising that I would attempt to call her again in approximately 10 minutes and that if I remained unable to contact her I would proceed in her absence.
I successfully contacted Ms Shaw on my second attempt and she joined the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The hearing
From the outset Ms Shaw strongly disputed the landlord's claim. Her position was that she was not responsible for any of the costs sought. She maintained that the property had been broken into on multiple occasions and that rubbish had been dumped at the premises by third parties. She repeatedly stated that she was not prepared to pay for damage or rubbish she said had been caused by others.
Ms Shaw also complained about the condition of the premises during the tenancy. She said the property suffered from leaking walls, that it was not clean when she moved in and that the landlord had failed to adequately address issues she had raised during the tenancy. She further expressed dissatisfaction about what she considered to be a lack of assistance from the landlord when she reported concerns for her personal safety and requested assistance with relocation.
Mr Taufa rejected those allegations. He said the claim before me was limited to cleaning and rubbish removal costs and did not include any claim for ordinary wear and tear. He said the property had been inspected by him on 2 April 2025 while Ms Shaw was still residing there. He recalled that the spa pool and tyres later left at the property were present at that inspection and that Ms Shaw herself discussed those items with him at the time.
Mr Taufa said that when the tenancy ultimately ended, substantial rubbish remained throughout the property, including rubbish around the house, beneath the house and within two sheds. He also said the interior of the property required cleaning before it could be re-let. He produced photographs showing the condition of the premises after the tenancy ended and explained that the landlord incurred costs of $1,417.80 for rubbish removal and $493.61 for cleaning.
Throughout the hearing Ms Shaw repeatedly interrupted both Mr Taufa and me while questions were being asked and answered. I directed her on several occasions to allow Mr Taufa to complete his evidence and advised her that she would have an opportunity to respond. Despite those directions the interruptions continued.
I warned Ms Shaw that if she continued interrupting the proceedings I would remove her from the hearing. Shortly thereafter she chose to leave the hearing herself and did not return. The later part of the hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.

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 relies principally on photographs taken after possession was returned, the evidence of Mr Taufa, the cleaning and rubbish removal invoices, and the inspection information relating to the tenancy.
Mr Taufa explained that although Ms Shaw later claimed the property had been effectively vacant for some time before the keys were returned, the landlord was not in possession of the premises and could not conduct a final inspection until the tenancy was formally concluded and the keys were returned. Mr Taufa also gave evidence that he was unaware that Ms Shaw had vacated the premises. Mr Taufa's evidence concerning the vacation of the premises
Mr Taufa said he had conducted a routine tenancy inspection on 2 April 2025. He explained that the inspection had originally been scheduled for 26 December 2024. However, because the inspection date fell during the Christmas and New Year holiday period, and following discussions with Ms Shaw, the inspection was deferred and rescheduled to 2 April 2025.
Mr Taufa said Ms Shaw attended the inspection and walked through the property with him. He recalled discussing a number of issues she had raised concerning the property, particularly her concerns about the carpets. He said that because a considerable amount of time was spent discussing those matters, he inadvertently failed to take photographs during the inspection. However, he retained a written record of the inspection.
Mr Taufa said that at the time of the inspection the property was generally in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Although there were concerns relating to the carpets, he said the condition of the property overall did not give any indication that Ms Shaw had permanently vacated the premises. He also recalled that a spa pool and several tyres were present on the property at that time and that Ms Shaw was aware of those items. Indeed, he said she joked about continuing to use the spa during the winter months.
Mr Taufa said he was therefore surprised when, some time after the inspection, Ms Shaw advised that she was no longer residing at the property. He said that prior to that advice he had no reason to believe the premises had been abandoned or vacated. To the contrary, Ms Shaw had attended the April 2025 inspection in person and had actively engaged with him regarding issues at the property.
Mr Taufa said that communication with Ms Shaw thereafter was sporadic. She had previously contacted the landlord expressing concerns about her personal safety and indicating that people were attempting to locate her. He said he advised her to contact Police and make an application for a housing transfer. According to Mr Taufa, Ms Shaw later advised she had found alternative accommodation and intended to move elsewhere.
However, Mr Taufa said that although Ms Shaw later maintained the property had effectively been vacant for a considerable period, the landlord was not aware that she had ceased residing there. He explained that the tenancy remained in her name, the keys had not been returned and possession had not been surrendered. As a result, the landlord was unable to conduct a final inspection or take control of the premises.
Mr Taufa estimated that approximately two months had elapsed between the time Ms Shaw indicated she was no longer residing at the property and the eventual return of the keys. He said the landlord even waived the usual notice requirements in an attempt to assist Ms Shaw's relocation. Nevertheless, the keys were not returned promptly and the tenancy could not be formally concluded until much later.
Mr Taufa said that once the keys were finally returned, the landlord arranged for a vacant possession inspection on 4 June 2025. It was during that inspection that the photographs now before the Tribunal were taken and the extent of the cleaning and rubbish removal required became apparent. Analysis
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iv) of the Act requires a tenant to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, to remove all rubbish from the premises, and to return all keys to the landlord.
The landlord bears the burden of establishing that those obligations were not met. Having considered the evidence before me, I am satisfied the landlord has discharged that burden.
The photographs taken following the return of possession show substantial rubbish remaining at the property, including rubbish around the exterior of the premises, beneath the house and within two sheds. The photographs also demonstrate that cleaning was required before the property could be returned to a condition suitable for reletting.
The principal issue raised by Ms Shaw was that she should not be held responsible for those costs because the property had allegedly been broken into on several occasions and rubbish had been dumped at the premises by third parties.
I do not accept that submission.
Although Ms Shaw strongly disputed liability, she did not produce any evidence to support her assertions. No photographs, police reports, witness statements, or other material were provided to substantiate her claim that third parties were responsible for the rubbish left at the property. While Ms Shaw indicated during the earlier proceedings on 12 March 2026, which were adjourned to give her an opportunity to prepare and submit evidence, that she intended to rely on photographs, no such evidence was provided.
I accept Mr Taufa's evidence regarding the timeline of events leading to the end of the tenancy. Mr Taufa conducted an inspection of the premises on 2 April 2025. That inspection had originally been scheduled for 26 December 2024 but was postponed due to the Christmas and New Year holiday period and rescheduled for a later date. Ms Shaw attended the April inspection. Mr Taufa's evidence was that the property was generally in a reasonable condition at that time apart from concerns Ms Shaw raised regarding the carpet. He also recalled that the spa pool and tyres later requiring removal were already present at the property during that inspection.
The April inspection is significant because it occurred only a short period before the tenancy ended. It demonstrates that Ms Shaw remained actively involved with the tenancy at that time. I accept Mr Taufa's evidence that he had no reason to believe the property had been abandoned or vacated when that inspection occurred.
I also accept Mr Taufa's evidence that the landlord was not aware that Ms Shaw had ceased residing at the property until considerably later. Although Ms Shaw subsequently asserted that the property had effectively been vacant for some time, the tenancy remained in her name, the keys had not been returned and possession had not been surrendered. The landlord was therefore unable to conduct a final inspection or take possession of the premises.
Mr Taufa explained that communication with Ms Shaw became sporadic after she raised concerns regarding her personal safety and indicated that she wished to relocate. He said the landlord waived the usual notice requirements to assist her move. Nevertheless, the keys were not returned promptly and the tenancy was not formally concluded until some time later.
Even if I were to accept that Ms Shaw was absent from the property for periods before the tenancy formally ended, responsibility for the condition of the premises remained with her until possession was returned to the landlord. See section 41 of the Act. The evidence does not establish that the landlord assumed responsibility for the premises during that period.
I also accept Mr Taufa's evidence that a number of the larger items later requiring removal, including the spa pool and tyres, were present during the April 2025 inspection while Ms Shaw remained the tenant in occupation. That evidence is inconsistent with Ms Shaw's assertion that all of the rubbish was deposited by unknown third parties after she had left.
In assessing the evidence, I found Mr Taufa to be a credible and reliable witness. His evidence was supported by the photographs and documents before me. By contrast, Ms Shaw's evidence consisted largely of self-serving statements unsupported by independent evidence.
I therefore prefer the evidence of Mr Taufa where there is a conflict between the parties.
Taking all of the evidence together, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, that rubbish remained at the property, and that the landlord incurred the claimed cleaning and rubbish removal costs as a direct consequence. Conclusion
I find that Ms Shaw failed to comply with her obligations under s 40 of the Act by failing to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by failing to remove rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy.
I reject Ms Shaw's contention that the landlord should bear responsibility for the condition in which the premises were left. The evidence does not support a finding that the rubbish removal and cleaning costs were caused by the actions of third parties or by any act or omission of the landlord. Even if it does, Ms Shaw remains liable under s 41 of the Act
I am satisfied that the landlord reasonably incurred cleaning costs of $493.61 and rubbish removal costs of $1,417.80, a total of $1,911.41. After crediting the payment of $135.01 received from Ms Shaw on 15 October 2025, the balance owing is $1,776.40.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for compensation is granted. The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Tāmaki Regeneration Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371461 — net $1,666.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,417.80		Rubbish removal
Cleaning: the whole house	$493.61		Cleaning: the whole house
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Payment received on 15 October 2025		$135.01	Payment received on 15 October 2025
Total award	$1,939.41	$135.01
Net award	$1,666.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,666.40

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tāmaki Regeneration Limited $1,666.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $138.00 (3044171-006) to Tāmaki Regeneration Limited immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
Mr Taufa attended on behalf of the landlord. When the hearing commenced Ms Shaw was not present. I attempted to contact her by telephone and was unable to reach her. I left a voicemail advising that I would attempt to call her again in approximately 10 minutes and that if I remained unable to contact her I would proceed in her absence.
I successfully contacted Ms Shaw on my second attempt and she joined the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The hearing
From the outset Ms Shaw strongly disputed the landlord's claim. Her position was that she was not responsible for any of the costs sought. She maintained that the property had been broken into on multiple occasions and that rubbish had been dumped at the premises by third parties. She repeatedly stated that she was not prepared to pay for damage or rubbish she said had been caused by others.
Ms Shaw also complained about the condition of the premises during the tenancy. She said the property suffered from leaking walls, that it was not clean when she moved in and that the landlord had failed to adequately address issues she had raised during the tenancy. She further expressed dissatisfaction about what she considered to be a lack of assistance from the landlord when she reported concerns for her personal safety and requested assistance with relocation.
Mr Taufa rejected those allegations. He said the claim before me was limited to cleaning and rubbish removal costs and did not include any claim for ordinary wear and tear. He said the property had been inspected by him on 2 April 2025 while Ms Shaw was still residing there. He recalled that the spa pool and tyres later left at the property were present at that inspection and that Ms Shaw herself discussed those items with him at the time.
Mr Taufa said that when the tenancy ultimately ended, substantial rubbish remained throughout the property, including rubbish around the house, beneath the house and within two sheds. He also said the interior of the property required cleaning before it could be re-let. He produced photographs showing the condition of the premises after the tenancy ended and explained that the landlord incurred costs of $1,417.80 for rubbish removal and $493.61 for cleaning.
Throughout the hearing Ms Shaw repeatedly interrupted both Mr Taufa and me while questions were being asked and answered. I directed her on several occasions to allow Mr Taufa to complete his evidence and advised her that she would have an opportunity to respond. Despite those directions the interruptions continued.
I warned Ms Shaw that if she continued interrupting the proceedings I would remove her from the hearing. Shortly thereafter she chose to leave the hearing herself and did not return. The later part of the hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.

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 relies principally on photographs taken after possession was returned, the evidence of Mr Taufa, the cleaning and rubbish removal invoices, and the inspection information relating to the tenancy.
Mr Taufa explained that although Ms Shaw later claimed the property had been effectively vacant for some time before the keys were returned, the landlord was not in possession of the premises and could not conduct a final inspection until the tenancy was formally concluded and the keys were returned. Mr Taufa also gave evidence that he was unaware that Ms Shaw had vacated the premises. Mr Taufa's evidence concerning the vacation of the premises
Mr Taufa said he had conducted a routine tenancy inspection on 2 April 2025. He explained that the inspection had originally been scheduled for 26 December 2024. However, because the inspection date fell during the Christmas and New Year holiday period, and following discussions with Ms Shaw, the inspection was deferred and rescheduled to 2 April 2025.
Mr Taufa said Ms Shaw attended the inspection and walked through the property with him. He recalled discussing a number of issues she had raised concerning the property, particularly her concerns about the carpets. He said that because a considerable amount of time was spent discussing those matters, he inadvertently failed to take photographs during the inspection. However, he retained a written record of the inspection.
Mr Taufa said that at the time of the inspection the property was generally in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Although there were concerns relating to the carpets, he said the condition of the property overall did not give any indication that Ms Shaw had permanently vacated the premises. He also recalled that a spa pool and several tyres were present on the property at that time and that Ms Shaw was aware of those items. Indeed, he said she joked about continuing to use the spa during the winter months.
Mr Taufa said he was therefore surprised when, some time after the inspection, Ms Shaw advised that she was no longer residing at the property. He said that prior to that advice he had no reason to believe the premises had been abandoned or vacated. To the contrary, Ms Shaw had attended the April 2025 inspection in person and had actively engaged with him regarding issues at the property.
Mr Taufa said that communication with Ms Shaw thereafter was sporadic. She had previously contacted the landlord expressing concerns about her personal safety and indicating that people were attempting to locate her. He said he advised her to contact Police and make an application for a housing transfer. According to Mr Taufa, Ms Shaw later advised she had found alternative accommodation and intended to move elsewhere.
However, Mr Taufa said that although Ms Shaw later maintained the property had effectively been vacant for a considerable period, the landlord was not aware that she had ceased residing there. He explained that the tenancy remained in her name, the keys had not been returned and possession had not been surrendered. As a result, the landlord was unable to conduct a final inspection or take control of the premises.
Mr Taufa estimated that approximately two months had elapsed between the time Ms Shaw indicated she was no longer residing at the property and the eventual return of the keys. He said the landlord even waived the usual notice requirements in an attempt to assist Ms Shaw's relocation. Nevertheless, the keys were not returned promptly and the tenancy could not be formally concluded until much later.
Mr Taufa said that once the keys were finally returned, the landlord arranged for a vacant possession inspection on 4 June 2025. It was during that inspection that the photographs now before the Tribunal were taken and the extent of the cleaning and rubbish removal required became apparent. Analysis
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iv) of the Act requires a tenant to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, to remove all rubbish from the premises, and to return all keys to the landlord.
The landlord bears the burden of establishing that those obligations were not met. Having considered the evidence before me, I am satisfied the landlord has discharged that burden.
The photographs taken following the return of possession show substantial rubbish remaining at the property, including rubbish around the exterior of the premises, beneath the house and within two sheds. The photographs also demonstrate that cleaning was required before the property could be returned to a condition suitable for reletting.
The principal issue raised by Ms Shaw was that she should not be held responsible for those costs because the property had allegedly been broken into on several occasions and rubbish had been dumped at the premises by third parties.
I do not accept that submission.
Although Ms Shaw strongly disputed liability, she did not produce any evidence to support her assertions. No photographs, police reports, witness statements, or other material were provided to substantiate her claim that third parties were responsible for the rubbish left at the property. While Ms Shaw indicated during the earlier proceedings on 12 March 2026, which were adjourned to give her an opportunity to prepare and submit evidence, that she intended to rely on photographs, no such evidence was provided.
I accept Mr Taufa's evidence regarding the timeline of events leading to the end of the tenancy. Mr Taufa conducted an inspection of the premises on 2 April 2025. That inspection had originally been scheduled for 26 December 2024 but was postponed due to the Christmas and New Year holiday period and rescheduled for a later date. Ms Shaw attended the April inspection. Mr Taufa's evidence was that the property was generally in a reasonable condition at that time apart from concerns Ms Shaw raised regarding the carpet. He also recalled that the spa pool and tyres later requiring removal were already present at the property during that inspection.
The April inspection is significant because it occurred only a short period before the tenancy ended. It demonstrates that Ms Shaw remained actively involved with the tenancy at that time. I accept Mr Taufa's evidence that he had no reason to believe the property had been abandoned or vacated when that inspection occurred.
I also accept Mr Taufa's evidence that the landlord was not aware that Ms Shaw had ceased residing at the property until considerably later. Although Ms Shaw subsequently asserted that the property had effectively been vacant for some time, the tenancy remained in her name, the keys had not been returned and possession had not been surrendered. The landlord was therefore unable to conduct a final inspection or take possession of the premises.
Mr Taufa explained that communication with Ms Shaw became sporadic after she raised concerns regarding her personal safety and indicated that she wished to relocate. He said the landlord waived the usual notice requirements to assist her move. Nevertheless, the keys were not returned promptly and the tenancy was not formally concluded until some time later.
Even if I were to accept that Ms Shaw was absent from the property for periods before the tenancy formally ended, responsibility for the condition of the premises remained with her until possession was returned to the landlord. See section 41 of the Act. The evidence does not establish that the landlord assumed responsibility for the premises during that period.
I also accept Mr Taufa's evidence that a number of the larger items later requiring removal, including the spa pool and tyres, were present during the April 2025 inspection while Ms Shaw remained the tenant in occupation. That evidence is inconsistent with Ms Shaw's assertion that all of the rubbish was deposited by unknown third parties after she had left.
In assessing the evidence, I found Mr Taufa to be a credible and reliable witness. His evidence was supported by the photographs and documents before me. By contrast, Ms Shaw's evidence consisted largely of self-serving statements unsupported by independent evidence.
I therefore prefer the evidence of Mr Taufa where there is a conflict between the parties.
Taking all of the evidence together, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, that rubbish remained at the property, and that the landlord incurred the claimed cleaning and rubbish removal costs as a direct consequence. Conclusion
I find that Ms Shaw failed to comply with her obligations under s 40 of the Act by failing to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by failing to remove rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy.
I reject Ms Shaw's contention that the landlord should bear responsibility for the condition in which the premises were left. The evidence does not support a finding that the rubbish removal and cleaning costs were caused by the actions of third parties or by any act or omission of the landlord. Even if it does, Ms Shaw remains liable under s 41 of the Act
I am satisfied that the landlord reasonably incurred cleaning costs of $493.61 and rubbish removal costs of $1,417.80, a total of $1,911.41. After crediting the payment of $135.01 received from Ms Shaw on 15 October 2025, the balance owing is $1,776.40.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for compensation is granted. The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Tāmaki Regeneration Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371461 — Cleanliness at 3 Leybourne Circle, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371461 — Cleanliness at 3 Leybourne Circle, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.