What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5442030?

The tribunal order states: Joseph Heke must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,806.50

How much money was awarded in case 5442030?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,226.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775608-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5442030?

The tribunal order states: Joseph Heke must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,806.50

How much money was awarded in case 5442030?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,226.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13775608-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442030 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442030 — net $3,806.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Slash long grass	$700.00	Lawns and Garden work: Slash long grass
Rubbish removal	$3,226.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,806.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,806.50

Joseph Heke must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,806.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $148.00 (A80112905) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lawns and Garden work: Slash long grass$700.00 Rubbish removal$3,226.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,954.50 Bond$148.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,806.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.

Ms Smith appeared for the landlord.

The tenant, Mr Heke, appeared via teleconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims costs for rectifying the condition of the property upon vacation. The total amount claimed relates to two items: charges for slashing overgrown vegetation/lawns and removal of rubbish from the premises.

I have reviewed the file, the end-of-tenancy inspection report, and all evidence and submissions provided during the hearing.

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 Act”). Ms Smith’s submissions

Ms Smith submitted that the property was not returned in a reasonable clean and tidy condition, as required under section 40(1)(e) of the Act. She confirmed the claim is limited solely to the costs of addressing overgrown grounds and rubbish removal, with no charges applied to the interior of the property or for any other issues.

She stated that when the tenancy commenced on 05 March 1998, the grounds were maintained and the vegetation was not overgrown. It was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the outdoor areas throughout the tenancy, and the significant length of the grass and vegetation found at the end of the tenancy on 05 January 2026 demonstrated that the tenant did not discharge his statutory duty. She submitted that the cost claimed reflects the expense of professional slashing and tidying of these areas to bring them back to an acceptable standard.

Regarding rubbish removal, Ms Smith noted that for a long-term tenancy like Mr Heke’s, the landlord often provides a skip bin to assist tenants with clearing their belongings and waste upon moving out. She acknowledged that it is possible for third parties to add waste to a skip bin, but emphasised that the volume of rubbish left at the property, totalling 18 cubic metres, far exceeded what could be accounted for by that factor alone. A large quantity of waste remained on-site, including items such as tyres which cannot be placed in standard skip bins. Rubbish was also found stored under the house. The extent of the waste meant that multiple collections and removal works were required, and the costs claimed represent the actual expenses incurred to clear the property entirely. Mr Heke’s submissions

Mr Heke accepted that the grass was long and that waste items were present when he vacated, but denied responsibility for the costs claimed.

In relation to the vegetation, he argued that what was described as “grass” was actually edible plants he had grown himself, which he stated were used in cooking and were similar to produce sold commercially. He also submitted that the landlord had previously undertaken works involving excavation and removal of soil, and that regrowth in these areas was unavoidable. He claimed he was never instructed at the start of the tenancy that he was responsible for maintaining the lawns, and was told by the landlord that such work would be handled by them.

Concerning the rubbish, Mr Heke stated that much of the waste was not his own. He alleged that neighbours and other people who had never lived at the property had added items to the bins and left rubbish on the land. He recalled that a property manager was present during the move-out, and when he raised the issue of third-party waste, he was told nothing could be done and that the landlord would remove it later. He also stated he requested an additional waste bin during the tenancy as he had insufficient capacity, but this request was refused, leaving him unable to dispose of waste properly.

Mr Heke further explained that he suffers from multiple medical conditions, including arthritis, diabetes, and has artificial limbs, which limit his physical ability to carry out maintenance or removal work. He noted that he vacated the property because he was asked to leave, not because he chose to, and that he did not have sufficient time to clear everything. He maintained that he had kept the property in good order throughout the tenancy, and that the issues identified were caused by factors outside his control. Findings and conclusion

I have considered all submissions and the evidence before me, including the inspection report which contains clear descriptions and observations of the property’s condition at the end of the tenancy.

Mr Heke is responsible for leaving the property in a condition that is reasonable clean and tidy. Whether the plants were edible or not does not change the obligation to maintain the grounds so that they do not become overgrown. The inspection report confirms the vegetation was excessively long and unkempt. The claim is for the cost of bringing the grounds back to a standard that would be reasonably clean and tidy, and the cost claimed is reasonable and directly attributable to the failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

I do not accept the submission that the landlord agreed to undertake this maintenance. There is no evidence to support this, and the statutory obligation rests with the tenant.

The volume and nature of the waste, including items such as tyres and inorganic materials stored under the house, demonstrate that this was not merely minor or incidental waste, nor can it be attributed solely to third parties. Even if others added items to the waste, Mr Heke, as the person in possession of the property, has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that waste is removed before vacating.

The refusal of an additional bin does not absolve Mr Heke of his responsibility, nor do his health conditions, while sympathetic, alter the legal standard required.

Accordingly, I find that Mr Heke did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442030 — net $3,806.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Slash long grass	$700.00	Lawns and Garden work: Slash long grass
Rubbish removal	$3,226.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,806.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,806.50

Joseph Heke must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,806.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.

Ms Smith appeared for the landlord.

The tenant, Mr Heke, appeared via teleconference.

I have reviewed the file, the end-of-tenancy inspection report, and all evidence and submissions provided during the hearing.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Mr Heke accepted that the grass was long and that waste items were present when he vacated, but denied responsibility for the costs claimed.

I do not accept the submission that the landlord agreed to undertake this maintenance. There is no evidence to support this, and the statutory obligation rests with the tenant.

The refusal of an additional bin does not absolve Mr Heke of his responsibility, nor do his health conditions, while sympathetic, alter the legal standard required.

Accordingly, I find that Mr Heke did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442030 — Tenancy dispute at 49 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442030 — Tenancy dispute at 49 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions