What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402778 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,673.02

How much money was awarded in case 5402778?

Cleaning: $448.06 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,224.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402778?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402778?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402778 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,673.02

How much money was awarded in case 5402778?

Cleaning: $448.06 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,224.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402778?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402778?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9C Kerr Street, Devonport, Auckland 0624 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402778 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402778 — net $2,673.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,224.96	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$448.06	Cleaning
Net award	$2,673.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,673.02

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy address was sold by the applicant, and the respondent was given 90 days’ notice on 26 March 2025. The notice was due to expire on 30 June 2025.

The respondent did not comply with the notice to vacate. As a result, Kāinga Ora sought a Tenancy Tribunal order terminating the tenancy and granting possession.

On 15 September 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted possession to the applicant, effective 26 September 2025.

The respondent did not comply with that order. There were ongoing discussions between the parties regarding relocating the respondent to a new property under a new tenancy agreement. The tenancy was ultimately vacated at the end of October 2025.

Photographs of the vacated property show that it was not left in a compliant condition under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish.

The respondent states that, on 9 October 2025, a representative of the applicant, during a property visit, advised that rubbish could be left at the premises and that Kāinga Ora would arrange for its disposal.

The applicant has provided an email dated 23 October 2025, which was initially sent to an incorrect address and re-sent on 29 October 2025. That email records a discussion between the parties in which the applicant advised that removal of rubbish may incur costs.

The respondent’s position is that they did not expect to be charged for rubbish removal, and that the applicant led them to believe that Kāinga Ora would meet that cost.

I must assess the evidence in its proper context. The tenancy should have legally ended on 30 June 2025, at the expiry of the 90-day notice. The conduct of the parties reflects the applicant’s approach in accommodating the respondent’s circumstances, allowing time to contest the notice and to make arrangements to relocate, rather than taking a strict enforcement approach.

The contemporaneous evidence, being the email dated 23 October 2025 and delivered on 29 October 2025, supports the applicant’s position. Although the respondent says they did not receive that email, I am satisfied that it was sent and would ordinarily have been received. It reflects the parties’ understanding that rubbish removal could incur a charge.

While such costs are, in any event, ordinarily the responsibility of the tenant, the evidence does not establish that the applicant agreed to waive those costs. On the contrary, the contemporaneous communication indicates that costs may be incurred.

I accept that the amount claimed is significant for the respondent, given their circumstances. However, there is nothing before me that displaces their liability.

I find that the respondent is in breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. The applicant has incurred costs in remedying that breach, and I am satisfied those costs were reasonably incurred.

Accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay the claimed amount.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402778 — net $2,673.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,224.96	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$448.06	Cleaning
Net award	$2,673.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,673.02

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,673.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy address was sold by the applicant, and the respondent was given 90 days’ notice on 26 March 2025. The notice was due to expire on 30 June 2025.
The respondent did not comply with the notice to vacate. As a result, Kāinga Ora sought a Tenancy Tribunal order terminating the tenancy and granting possession.
On 15 September 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted possession to the applicant, effective 26 September 2025.
The respondent did not comply with that order. There were ongoing discussions between the parties regarding relocating the respondent to a new property under a new tenancy agreement. The tenancy was ultimately vacated at the end of October 2025.
Photographs of the vacated property show that it was not left in a compliant condition under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires a tenant to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish.
The respondent states that, on 9 October 2025, a representative of the applicant, during a property visit, advised that rubbish could be left at the premises and that Kāinga Ora would arrange for its disposal.
The applicant has provided an email dated 23 October 2025, which was initially sent to an incorrect address and re-sent on 29 October 2025. That email records a discussion between the parties in which the applicant advised that removal of rubbish may incur costs.
The respondent’s position is that they did not expect to be charged for rubbish removal, and that the applicant led them to believe that Kāinga Ora would meet that cost.
I must assess the evidence in its proper context. The tenancy should have legally ended on 30 June 2025, at the expiry of the 90-day notice. The conduct of the parties reflects the applicant’s approach in accommodating the respondent’s circumstances, allowing time to contest the notice and to make arrangements to relocate, rather than taking a strict enforcement approach.
The contemporaneous evidence, being the email dated 23 October 2025 and delivered on 29 October 2025, supports the applicant’s position. Although the respondent says they did not receive that email, I am satisfied that it was sent and would ordinarily have been received. It reflects the parties’ understanding that rubbish removal could incur a charge.
While such costs are, in any event, ordinarily the responsibility of the tenant, the evidence does not establish that the applicant agreed to waive those costs. On the contrary, the contemporaneous communication indicates that costs may be incurred.
I accept that the amount claimed is significant for the respondent, given their circumstances. However, there is nothing before me that displaces their liability.
I find that the respondent is in breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. The applicant has incurred costs in remedying that breach, and I am satisfied those costs were reasonably incurred.
Accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay the claimed amount.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402778 — Cleanliness at 9C Kerr Street, Devonport, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402778 — Cleanliness at 9C Kerr Street, Devonport, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions