What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5496211?

The tribunal order states: The landlord's claim for compensation is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5496211?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496211?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13691723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5496211?

The tribunal order states: The landlord's claim for compensation is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5496211?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496211?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13691723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 131 Merivale Lane, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496211 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496211 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

The landlord's claim for compensation is dismissed
Cowdy & Co Limited As Agent For Mary Fenwick must pay Darren Bridgett and Annika Bridgett $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-10091996) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.
Ms Cowdy appeared on behalf of the landlord. Mr and Mrs Bridgett, the tenants, appeared on their own behalf.
The tenants seek the return of the bond. The landlord seeks compensation of $123.05 for the cost of emptying Council rubbish and recycling bins following the end of the tenancy.

What is in Dispute?

The issue is whether the tenants breached their obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy at the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord says rubbish remained in the Council rubbish and recycling bins at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible for the cost incurred in having those bins emptied.
The tenants deny liability. They say the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy and that any rubbish remaining in the bins was awaiting collection through the Council's ordinary waste collection service. The Parties' Submissions
Ms Cowdy submitted that the tenancy ended on 3 February 2026 and that the property was relet from 5 February 2026. During the outgoing inspection on 4 February 2026, the red general waste bin and the yellow recycling bin were found at the collection point awaiting collection.
Ms Cowdy said both bins contained waste. She said the Council collects only one type of bin during each collection cycle and therefore one bin would remain for the incoming tenant. She submitted that the landlord could not reasonably be expected to leave rubbish generated by the outgoing tenants for the incoming tenants to deal with.
Ms Cowdy said that on 4 February 2026 the tenants were contacted and given the option of returning to empty the bins themselves or allowing the landlord to arrange for the bins to be emptied. A contractor was subsequently instructed to attend the property. The contractor emptied both bins and cleaned them. The cost incurred was $123.05.
Ms Cowdy referred to the vacating guidelines provided to tenants when notice is given. Those guidelines state that the red, green and yellow bins are to be emptied before the tenancy ends. She submitted that tenants are responsible for removing rubbish at the conclusion of a tenancy and that the landlord should not bear the cost of disposing of rubbish generated during the tenancy.
Mr and Mrs Bridgett disputed the claim.
Mr Bridgett submitted that the parties' rights and obligations are governed by the tenancy agreement, which mirrors the Act. He submitted that the vacating guidelines relied upon by the landlord are not part of the tenancy agreement and were only provided after notice to terminate had been given. He said the tenants had never agreed to be bound by those guidelines.
Mr Bridgett submitted that neither the Act nor the tenancy agreement required the bins to be empty at the end of the tenancy. He submitted that their obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not to leave rubbish on the premises.
Mr Bridgett said the yellow recycling bin was due to be collected by the Council on 5 February 2026. He produced the Council collection calendar in support of that submission. He said the recycling bin had been placed at the designated collection point for collection in the ordinary course.
Mrs Bridgett submitted that the red general waste bin was not full and probably contained only a single rubbish bag. She disputed any suggestion that substantial rubbish had been left behind.
The tenants submitted that they had acted responsibly, had left the premises in an excellent condition and had used the Council's waste collection service in the ordinary manner. They submitted that the landlord's claim arose from a difference of opinion about waste collection rather than any failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Analysis
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act requires a tenant, at the termination of a tenancy, to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The obligation is one of reasonableness. It does not require premises to be left in a perfect condition or free from every sign of occupation.
The landlord bears the burden of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants breached that obligation and that the loss claimed was caused by that breach.
The tenants placed considerable emphasis on what they described as the hierarchy of obligations, namely that the tenancy agreement prevails over the landlord's vacating guidelines. I accept that the parties' rights and obligations arise from the Act and the tenancy agreement. However, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the vacating guidelines form part of the tenancy agreement because the dispute ultimately turns on whether the tenants complied with their statutory obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii).
Importantly, it is not disputed that the dwelling itself was left reasonably clean and tidy. Ms Cowdy acknowledged that the tenants had generally maintained the property to a high standard. The dispute concerns the contents of the Council bins only.
I accept Ms Cowdy's evidence that both bins contained some waste at the end of the tenancy. However, I also accept Mrs Bridgett's evidence that the red general waste bin was not full and may have contained only a single rubbish bag. Ms Cowdy did not appear to take issue with the red bin not being full.
I further accept the tenants' evidence that the yellow recycling bin was due for collection by the Council on 5 February 2026. The collection calendar produced by the tenants supports that submission.
The evidence establishes that the yellow recycling bin had been placed at the designated collection point for collection in the ordinary course. There is no dispute that the tenants had occupied the property for more than two years and were familiar with the Council's collection arrangements.
The mere fact that a Council rubbish or recycling bin contains household waste at the end of a tenancy does not, without more, establish that the premises have not been left reasonably clean and tidy. Council bins exist for the ordinary disposal of household waste. Where a tenancy ends between scheduled collection dates, it is foreseeable that some waste may remain in those bins awaiting collection.
The Act requires tenants to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. It does not require tenants to ensure that Council collection cycles coincide with the termination date of the tenancy.
I accept Ms Cowdy's submission that one of the bins would not have been collected on 5 February 2026 because the Council collects different bins on alternate weeks. However, that fact does not determine the issue before me. The question is whether the presence of a modest amount of waste in Council bins awaiting collection meant that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Taking the evidence and submissions in the round, I am not satisfied that it did. There is no evidence that the bins were overflowing, that substantial rubbish was left elsewhere on the premises, or that the state of the property fell below the standard required by s 40(1)(e)(iii).
In my view, the ordinary collection of household waste by the Council is not a cost arising from any breach by the tenants. The evidence establishes that the bins formed part of the Council's regular collection service and would have been collected in the ordinary course. In circumstances such as the present, where there is a timing difference between the Council's collection schedule and the tenancy termination date, any cost incurred is more properly characterised as an ordinary expense associated with the operation of a residential rental property, provided the bins contain no more than a reasonable quantity of ordinary household waste when the tenants vacate the premises.
I therefore find that the landlord has not established that the tenants breached their obligations under s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Conclusion
I find that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy as required by s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord has not established that the tenants breached that obligation or that the claimed cost of $123.05 resulted from any breach.
The landlord's claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Darren Bridgett, Annika Bridgett have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496211 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

The landlord's claim for compensation is dismissed
Cowdy & Co Limited As Agent For Mary Fenwick must pay Darren Bridgett and Annika Bridgett $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-10091996) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.
Ms Cowdy appeared on behalf of the landlord. Mr and Mrs Bridgett, the tenants, appeared on their own behalf.
The tenants seek the return of the bond. The landlord seeks compensation of $123.05 for the cost of emptying Council rubbish and recycling bins following the end of the tenancy.

What is in Dispute?

The issue is whether the tenants breached their obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy at the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord says rubbish remained in the Council rubbish and recycling bins at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible for the cost incurred in having those bins emptied.
The tenants deny liability. They say the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy and that any rubbish remaining in the bins was awaiting collection through the Council's ordinary waste collection service. The Parties' Submissions
Ms Cowdy submitted that the tenancy ended on 3 February 2026 and that the property was relet from 5 February 2026. During the outgoing inspection on 4 February 2026, the red general waste bin and the yellow recycling bin were found at the collection point awaiting collection.
Ms Cowdy said both bins contained waste. She said the Council collects only one type of bin during each collection cycle and therefore one bin would remain for the incoming tenant. She submitted that the landlord could not reasonably be expected to leave rubbish generated by the outgoing tenants for the incoming tenants to deal with.
Ms Cowdy said that on 4 February 2026 the tenants were contacted and given the option of returning to empty the bins themselves or allowing the landlord to arrange for the bins to be emptied. A contractor was subsequently instructed to attend the property. The contractor emptied both bins and cleaned them. The cost incurred was $123.05.
Ms Cowdy referred to the vacating guidelines provided to tenants when notice is given. Those guidelines state that the red, green and yellow bins are to be emptied before the tenancy ends. She submitted that tenants are responsible for removing rubbish at the conclusion of a tenancy and that the landlord should not bear the cost of disposing of rubbish generated during the tenancy.
Mr and Mrs Bridgett disputed the claim.
Mr Bridgett submitted that the parties' rights and obligations are governed by the tenancy agreement, which mirrors the Act. He submitted that the vacating guidelines relied upon by the landlord are not part of the tenancy agreement and were only provided after notice to terminate had been given. He said the tenants had never agreed to be bound by those guidelines.
Mr Bridgett submitted that neither the Act nor the tenancy agreement required the bins to be empty at the end of the tenancy. He submitted that their obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not to leave rubbish on the premises.
Mr Bridgett said the yellow recycling bin was due to be collected by the Council on 5 February 2026. He produced the Council collection calendar in support of that submission. He said the recycling bin had been placed at the designated collection point for collection in the ordinary course.
Mrs Bridgett submitted that the red general waste bin was not full and probably contained only a single rubbish bag. She disputed any suggestion that substantial rubbish had been left behind.
The tenants submitted that they had acted responsibly, had left the premises in an excellent condition and had used the Council's waste collection service in the ordinary manner. They submitted that the landlord's claim arose from a difference of opinion about waste collection rather than any failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Analysis
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act requires a tenant, at the termination of a tenancy, to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The obligation is one of reasonableness. It does not require premises to be left in a perfect condition or free from every sign of occupation.
The landlord bears the burden of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants breached that obligation and that the loss claimed was caused by that breach.
The tenants placed considerable emphasis on what they described as the hierarchy of obligations, namely that the tenancy agreement prevails over the landlord's vacating guidelines. I accept that the parties' rights and obligations arise from the Act and the tenancy agreement. However, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the vacating guidelines form part of the tenancy agreement because the dispute ultimately turns on whether the tenants complied with their statutory obligation under s 40(1)(e)(iii).
Importantly, it is not disputed that the dwelling itself was left reasonably clean and tidy. Ms Cowdy acknowledged that the tenants had generally maintained the property to a high standard. The dispute concerns the contents of the Council bins only.
I accept Ms Cowdy's evidence that both bins contained some waste at the end of the tenancy. However, I also accept Mrs Bridgett's evidence that the red general waste bin was not full and may have contained only a single rubbish bag. Ms Cowdy did not appear to take issue with the red bin not being full.
I further accept the tenants' evidence that the yellow recycling bin was due for collection by the Council on 5 February 2026. The collection calendar produced by the tenants supports that submission.
The evidence establishes that the yellow recycling bin had been placed at the designated collection point for collection in the ordinary course. There is no dispute that the tenants had occupied the property for more than two years and were familiar with the Council's collection arrangements.
The mere fact that a Council rubbish or recycling bin contains household waste at the end of a tenancy does not, without more, establish that the premises have not been left reasonably clean and tidy. Council bins exist for the ordinary disposal of household waste. Where a tenancy ends between scheduled collection dates, it is foreseeable that some waste may remain in those bins awaiting collection.
The Act requires tenants to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy. It does not require tenants to ensure that Council collection cycles coincide with the termination date of the tenancy.
I accept Ms Cowdy's submission that one of the bins would not have been collected on 5 February 2026 because the Council collects different bins on alternate weeks. However, that fact does not determine the issue before me. The question is whether the presence of a modest amount of waste in Council bins awaiting collection meant that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Taking the evidence and submissions in the round, I am not satisfied that it did. There is no evidence that the bins were overflowing, that substantial rubbish was left elsewhere on the premises, or that the state of the property fell below the standard required by s 40(1)(e)(iii).
In my view, the ordinary collection of household waste by the Council is not a cost arising from any breach by the tenants. The evidence establishes that the bins formed part of the Council's regular collection service and would have been collected in the ordinary course. In circumstances such as the present, where there is a timing difference between the Council's collection schedule and the tenancy termination date, any cost incurred is more properly characterised as an ordinary expense associated with the operation of a residential rental property, provided the bins contain no more than a reasonable quantity of ordinary household waste when the tenants vacate the premises.
I therefore find that the landlord has not established that the tenants breached their obligations under s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Conclusion
I find that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy as required by s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The landlord has not established that the tenants breached that obligation or that the claimed cost of $123.05 resulted from any breach.
The landlord's claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Darren Bridgett, Annika Bridgett have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496211 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 131 Merivale Lane, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496211 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 131 Merivale Lane, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is in Dispute?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is in Dispute?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions