End of Tenancy Cleaning Dispute in NZ Tribunal: Tenant Ordered to Pay $841

In [2025] NZTT 5117532, the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal decided an end of tenancy cleaning dispute between landlord Jill Moss (via Property Brokers Ltd) and tenant Aaron Peter Hadrup. 

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $841.31 after bond offsets for cleaning, rubbish, and minor damage, but also awarded the tenant $200 for a delayed toilet repair. This case illustrates how the Tribunal applies tenancy law to cleaning disputes, property damage, and landlord obligations. Read the full Tribunal order (PDF).

Case overview

• Tenancy Period: December 2022 – October 2024.

• Landlord’s Claims: Extra cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal, two missing chairs, and several alleged damages (walls, cabinetry, curtains).

• Tenant’s Response: Acknowledged unfinished cleaning, lawn mowing, and a broken door handle, but disputed other claims as fair wear and tear or pre-existing issues. The tenant also counterclaimed for lack of toilet repairs, which the landlord acknowledged in return, saying repairs were done two months later.

Tribunal findings

The Tribunal carefully assessed each claim, considering landlord evidence, tenant responses, and the Residential Tenancies Act. Its findings were as follows:

Cleaning & lawns

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by both parties to determine the tenant’s responsibility for the cleaning and lawn maintenance.

• Evidence: Landlord provided photodocumentation and invoices showing some areas in need of further cleaning and the lawn was unmown.

• Tenant’s Argument: Cleaning had been done, and lawns were partly maintained. However, it was ultimately agreed in the case that further cleaning was necessary even after the tenant’s initial maintenance work.

• Tribunal’s Reasoning: The property was not “reasonably clean and tidy” at the end of tenancy. Tenant liable for $400 cleaning and $350 lawn mowing.

Rubbish removal

The issue of rubbish removal was also examined, with both parties offering differing accounts of the responsibility for the accumulated waste.

• Evidence: Photos and 2 rubbish invoices for removal costs presented by the landlord

• Tenant’s Argument: Some rubbish was already present before his arrival, and the tenant helped his landlord remove rubbish without compensation during the tenancy. He did not deny leaving behind a few of his own rubbish by the end of his lease.

• Tribunal’s Reasoning: Since both parties contributed, the tenant was only ordered to pay half the total cost ($367.08).

Chattels (two chairs)

The Tribunal reviewed the claim regarding missing chattels, weighing the depreciation of the items in question.

• Evidence: Given that two wooden dining chairs, approximately 5 years old, were missing around the end of the lease, the landlord claimed $1,650 in replacement value.

• Tenant’s Argument: The Chairs were old and possibly already damaged. He claimed no knowledge about the whereabouts of these chattels.

• Tribunal’s Reasoning: Items had depreciated significantly. The award was reduced to $100 each chair, thus $200 is ordered in total.

Property damage

The Tribunal reviewed the claims related to property damage, focusing on the severity and causes of the damage to determine tenant liability.

• Evidence: Landlord claimed damage to walls, curtains, and cabinetry with entry and exit inspection reports, photographs, and invoices.

• Tenant’s Argument: The tenant accepts the claimed damage to the sleepout door handle, but refutes the rest of the claims; They were already pre-existing or fair wear and tear.

• Tribunal’s Reasoning: Only the sleepout door handle damage was upheld, costing $52.98. Other claims were dismissed as fair wear and tear or unproven.

Tenant counterclaim (toilet repairs)

The tenant raised a counterclaim for compensation due to the non-functioning toilet, highlighting the landlord's failure to provide timely repairs.

• Evidence: Tenant argued one bathroom toilet was unusable for two months. The landlord confirms records aligning with the tenant’s claim.

• Landlord’s Argument: Repairs were not urgent or were delayed for practical reasons.

• Tribunal’s Reasoning: Landlord failed to maintain property in a reasonable state of repair. Tenant was awarded $200 compensation.

Filing Fee

• The landlord's filing fee of $27 was reimbursed, as they were substantially successful.

Outcome / Ruling

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a total award of $1,397.06 in favour of the landlord. After applying the bond of $355.75 and offsetting the tenant’s $200 compensation for delayed toilet repairs, the tenant was then bound to pay a final balance of $841.31.

Legal terms and principles applied

In assessing the claims, the Tribunal applied several key legal principles to determine tenant and landlord responsibilities. These principles helped guide its decisions on the cleaning, damage, and repair disputes.

• “Reasonably clean and tidy” standard: The Tribunal confirmed tenants are not required to return the property in perfect condition, only to a state considered reasonably clean and tidy. This guided the $400 cleaning award.

• “Fair wear and tear”: Damage to walls, curtains, and cabinetry was dismissed as ordinary deterioration, not tenant liability.

• Careless damage: The broken sleepout door handle ($52.98) was found to be the tenant’s liability. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants are liable for careless damage up to the cost of repair (subject to insurance excess or four weeks’ rent caps, if applicable).

• Betterment and depreciation: The landlord’s $1,650 claim for two missing chairs was reduced to $200 because the chattels lost value over time and were already old around the time of tenancy. The Tribunal emphasised that landlords cannot achieve “betterment” by replacing old items with new ones at tenant expense.

• Landlord repair obligations: Under Section 45 of the RTA, the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Failure to repair a broken toilet for two months resulted in $200 compensation to the tenant.

Adjustments made

The Tribunal made several adjustments based on the evidence presented, considering shared responsibilities and depreciation in property claims.

• Cleaning and lawn costs were upheld, but rubbish removal expenses were halved due to shared responsibility.

• Chattel claims have decreased drastically due to depreciation.

• Only careless damage (door handle) was upheld; all other damage claims failed.

• The tenant was awarded set-off compensation for the landlord's toilet repair delays.

Final Result: Tenant ordered to pay $841.31 after all deductions and offsets.

Key takeaways for landlords

Taking note of the tribunal case outcomes, it is important for landlords to take broader and more proactive measures in protecting the rental property and ensuring a smooth tenancy agreement in the future.

• Always collect before-and-after photodocumentation, as well as entry and exit inspection reports. These serve as valuable evidence, especially for end-of-tenancy cleaning disputes.

• Understand that old furniture or fittings depreciate, and claims may be reduced. Tenants cannot pay for the replacement of an old chattel at the price of a brand new one.

• Tenants are only liable for proven damage beyond fair wear and tear.

• Cleanliness must meet the “reasonably clean and tidy” test, not a pristine standard.

• Promptly complete rental repairs as part of landlord's responsibility.

• Share responsibility if rubbish existed before the tenancy.

For landlords looking to ensure their properties meet all required standards and avoid similar issues, partnering with a trusted property management service can make a significant difference.

Insights from the tribunal’s ruling

The Kakahi case highlights the Tribunal’s consistent, objective approach in the end of tenancy cleaning disputes and the role of tenancy laws, such as the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, in maintaining objective decisions. 

To avoid conflict in the NZ rental landscape, tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, while landlords should refrain from overclaiming and ensure timely repairs are made.

For rental hotspots like Queenstown or Kakahi, both parties play a pivotal role in maintaining property conditions, initiating discussions on household management, and acting on repairs with regard to promptness.

Need expert help with another end of tenancy cleaning dispute? Contact Staircase for trusted tenancy advice and representation.