Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5415890 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 9, 15 Park Avenue, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011
Published 3 June 2026 · Application 5415890
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $7,706.29
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $7,706.29
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rubbish removal: from unit | $3,181.00 | Rubbish removal: from unit | |
| Rubbish removal: skips and labour to load | $3,182.29 | Rubbish removal: skips and labour to load | |
| Cleaning | $1,120.00 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $195.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $7,706.29 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $7,706.29 |
Claims and awards for application 5415890 — net $7,706.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rubbish removal: from unit
- Amount
- $3,181.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal: from unit
Rubbish removal: skips and labour to load
- Amount
- $3,182.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal: skips and labour to load
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,120.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $195.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $7,706.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $7,706.29
Dismissed claims
- The Cost Of Storage — Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Noor Dawood and Mohammed Dawood must pay Brc Limited $7,706.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend and did not answer the calls I made to their phones.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Can the landlord claim the cost of storage? • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?
Can the landlord claim the cost of storage?
- The landlord provided me with photos showing the belongings and rubbish left at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that the tenants removed a lot of their belongings before getting overwhelmed and walking away. Every room in the unit was piled high and there was very little room to walk between the piles left behind. There was some perishable rubbish which was disposed of. The landlord removed everything else to a storage unit on another site and has claimed the cost of storing the belongings at a rate of $80 a week.
- Sections 62 and 62A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) deal with the disposal of items left at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is required to make an assessment of market value, which is the value of each item left. If the value of the item is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling then the landlord may dispose of the item. Any items of value must be securely stored for a period of time and then sold.
- I accept the landlord had a difficult job because of the volume of rubbish and items left behind. However, I do not accept that the only way to deal with the situation was to carefully collect everything, put it on a truck, take it to a storage unit, and claim the cost of all that from the tenants.
- I have carefully examined all the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I cannot see one item of value in the photos. I find the landlord should have removed all the belongings from the unit and loaded them into skips. There was no legal requirement to store rubbish and items of no value. The claim for the cost of storage is dismissed.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
- The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- There is a large claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. Landlord provided me with good photos showing the need for cleaning. I accept that carpet cleaning was also required. The claims for cleaning are allowed in full.
- The claim for rubbish removal is also allowed. I have reduced the claim to take into account the unnecessary trips to the storage unit.
Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?
- There is a large claim for repairing damage at the end of the tenancy and for replacing the carpet. The 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- The tenancy agreement I was provided with records that this tenancy started in November 2023. The landlord said the photos showing the condition at the start of the tenancy were taken in 2021, just after the unit was redecorated. When I asked why there were no photos showing the condition at the start of this tenancy the landlord said the tenant moved into the unit in 2021 but there was a change of tenants, and a new tenancy agreement signed in 2023. I find the landlord has not proved the damage happened during this current tenancy, with these tenants.
- The claims for light bulbs is not allowed because there is no proof they were all working at the start of the tenancy.
- All claims relating to damage are dismissed. Filing fee
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s62
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- BRC LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415890?
The tribunal order states: Noor Dawood and Mohammed Dawood must pay Brc Limited $7,706.29
How much money was awarded in case 5415890?
Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,181.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,182.29 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415890?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415890?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13695469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.