Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5184036 — Cleanliness at 43 Swaffield Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Decided 10 Sept 2025 · Published 10 Sept 2025 · Application 5184036
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- Sera Holamotu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,307.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Ms Eder, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 991, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenancy ended on 16 December 2024. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew several compensation claims and reduced the amounts claimed in other claims also.
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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an Entry Inspection Report dated 18 January 2024 and an Exit Inspection Report dated 13 December 2024. Both reports had considerable photographs attached.
- The photographs show the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. It was obvious from the photographs that the tenant had not cleaned anything. The kitchen, living room, dining, bathroom, laundry and bedroom areas all had much rubbish, clothing, furniture, bedding, mattresses and bed bases and many other items left scattered throughout the house. There were items left in all the kitchen cupboards, bathroom and laundry. The floor had rubbish scattered throughout and had not been vacummed. The stovetop and oven were not cleaned either. There was extensive rubbish left inside the property including a couch, at least 5 mattresses and some bed bases, contents of all cupboards, product items, clothing, chest of drawer, old TV, tub, large pile of bedding and many other items.
- The landlord also provided photographs showing rubbish left outside the property. This exterior rubbish shown in the photographs included rubbish bags, boxes, bedhead, plastic bin, tyre and other rubbish items.
- The landlord claimed a total of $841.07 for a full house clean for this 3-bedroom house, as well as cleaning the stove and oven. I find this to be reasonable, given the evidence provided, and award the landlord $841.07 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord claimed $2,270.55 for clearing and removing 15 cubic metres of rubbish from the inside of the property and $700.00 for removing rubbish from the outside of the property. Given the amount of rubbish left and the evidence provided confirming this, I find both rubbish removal claims to be reasonable and award $2,270.55 to the landlord for rubbish removal inside and $700.00 to the landlord for rubbish removal outside the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord also claimed $150.00 for having to slash lengthy overgrown grass outside the property at the end of the tenancy. I find this claim proven, given the photographs of the very overgrown grass around the property, and find the amount claimed for this to be reasonable. Therefore, I award the landlord $150.00 for slashing the grass at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The landlord said the heat pump remote was missing at the end of the tenancy and had to be replaced. The landlord provided a photograph of the remote holder on the wall, which was missing this remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $83.21 to replace the heat pump remote, which I find reasonable and award the landlord for this.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The landlord claimed for repairs of a number of holes left in walls and doors throughout the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has proved the following claims, from detailed photographs of each hole and damage claimed, and work orders confirming what the repairs cost: a. Holes in the entry hall - $194.31 b. Holes in the dining room - $156.63 c. Holes in the stairwell/landing - $64.67 d. Holes in bedroom 1 wall - $64.77 e. Hole in bedroom 3 door - $91.86.
- Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.
- The landlord only claimed the cost of patching and stopping the holes, not any painting of the holes. As such, depreciation does not apply here. The tenant is thus liable for the full total cost of repairing all the holes in the walls and doors in the amount of $572.24.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant payments to be credited
- The landlord provided a statement setting out payments made by the tenant towards the end of tenancy costs incurred by the landlord, since the tenancy ended. These payments made by the tenant came to $310.00 as at 10 September 2025, according to the landlord. Thus, the tenant is to be credited for payment of this amount to date.