What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774699?

The tribunal order states: Talwan Trustee Company Limited (Paramjit Mehami & Parvinder Mehami) must

How much money was awarded in case 4774699?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774699?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11782051-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774699?

The tribunal order states: Talwan Trustee Company Limited (Paramjit Mehami & Parvinder Mehami) must

How much money was awarded in case 4774699?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774699?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11782051-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 View Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774699 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

1 View Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774699 — Smoke alarms | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774699 — net $3,856.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$563.50		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$480.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: failure to install smoke alarms		$2,000.00	failure to install smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: failure to provide insurance		$350.00	failure to provide insurance
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$900.00	failure to lodge bond
Compensation: general damages from Council's issuance		$1,500.00	general damages from Council's issuance
Total award	$1,393.50	$5,250.00
Net award		$3,856.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,856.50

Claims and awards for application 4774699 — net $3,856.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $563.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach of quiet enjoyment

Exemplary damages: failure to install smoke alarms

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to install smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Rubbish Removal

Order

Talwan Trustee Company Limited (Paramjit Mehami & Parvinder Mehami) must pay Kirsty Maree Munce $3,856.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the adjourned hearings, including the last hearing on 3 April 2025. The tenant is represented by an advocate Mr Seth Wotherspoon.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages after being required to leave the premises due to due to a dangerous building notice issued by Auckland Council on 20 December 2023.
Council inspectors determined that due to a proposed retaining wall not having been properly constructed, the dwelling was at risk of collapse in the ordinary course of events (even in the absence of an earthquake). Excavations near the retaining wall undertaken a year ago were large, deep and left open and unfenced. There was further risk that persons may be injured or killed should they fall into the excavation.
The premises had therefore been deemed to be uninhabitable when the matter was first called up before me at the 24 January 2024 case conference at the Pukekohe Tenancy Tribunal.
The tenant and her family had been sleeping in a tent on the premises with the landlord’s permission.
At the 24 January 2024 case conference, I considered that for all intents and purposes, the tenant has been evicted from the premises pursuant to the Auckland Council’s notice; the tenancy had effectively come to an end the moment the tenant is unable to access or safely occupy the dwelling for residential accommodation.
Accordingly, I ordered the immediate termination of the tenancy on 24 January 2024.
Subsequently, on 21 February 2024, Auckland Council issued a letter to the landlord confirming that after an inspection, the matters set out in its 22 January 2024 Dangerous Building Notice has been complied with and “resolved”. While the 21 February letter referred to an earlier 22 January 2024 dangerous building notice (instead of the 20 December 2023 notice), the February letter appear to refer to the same issue regarding risk of collapse rendering the premises uninhabitable.
The landlord later obtained a healthy homes inspection report from Oncore Healthy Home Assessment’s Dove Maintenance Limited dated 13 March 2024 to indicate that the premises is tenantable again. The report also shows that there was insulation on the premises during this tenancy.
Against these facts, and after substantive hearing from both the landlord and tenant on their respective claims, I now issue my reserved decision as follows.
I address firstly the landlord’s claims.

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 (‘RTA’).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
Only 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.
There was no incoming tenancy inspection report or photos showing the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Consequently, there is no basis for the Tribunal to conclude what damage was caused during the tenancy, rather than prior to the tenancy. The onus was on the landlord to first prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy.
Further, the majority of the landlord’s quotes and invoices adduced in support of the landlord’s claims were issued well after the tenancy has already ended in January 2024.
The landlord submitted confirmation that the premises is insured by Vero Insurance but no evidence has been submitted to show that insurance cover has been sought for the damage claimed by the landlord. Under section 49B(3)(a) RTA, where damage has been 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 only.
I find that the landlord has failed to discharge his onus of proving that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has duly disproved liability for the damage.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claims for compensation and damage to property in their entirety.
I now address the tenant’s claims. Has the landlord breached his maintenance and health and safety obligations under section 45 RTA?
Kirsty Maree Munce claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While insulation has been installed and provided to the premises during the tenancy, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act when they failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and comply with relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
The dwelling was deemed to be uninhabitable upon issuance of the dangerous building notice by Auckland Council in December 2023.
The landlord failed to instal smoke alarms during the tenancy.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I award the tenant compensation in the form of general damages and exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 45 RTA as set out in the table above. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
Kirsty Maree Munce claims the landlord has harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find on the evidence that the landlord has breached section 38(3) RTA by engaging in actions that disrupt the Applicant's quiet enjoyment. The landlord has on a number of occasions and without notice intruded into the tenant’s privacy by entering the property. The landlord also has instructed tradespersons to show up on the premises without notifying the applicant.
However, I do not consider the tenant has proved her allegation that the landlord’s intrusion of privacy to such an extent and circumstance that amount to harassment.
I award compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment in favour of the tenant of $500.00.

Has the landlord complied with his obligations in respect of the bond?

Kirsty Maree Munce claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond during the tenancy. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No reasons had been provided by the landlord on why the bond has not been lodged. Having regard to the above factors, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $900.00 in favour of the tenant is appropriate and just.

Has the landlord provided insurance details as required under the RTA?

The landlord has breached section 13A(1F)(a) RTA by neglecting to provide insurance information with the tenancy agreement.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1AAA) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord has committed the unlawful act intentionally. Having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I find it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord in the sum of $350.00. See section 109(3) RTA.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774699 — net $3,856.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$563.50		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$480.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: failure to install smoke alarms		$2,000.00	failure to install smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: failure to provide insurance		$350.00	failure to provide insurance
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$900.00	failure to lodge bond
Compensation: general damages from Council's issuance		$1,500.00	general damages from Council's issuance
Total award	$1,393.50	$5,250.00
Net award		$3,856.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,856.50

Claims and awards for application 4774699 — net $3,856.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $563.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach of quiet enjoyment

Exemplary damages: failure to install smoke alarms

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to install smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Rubbish Removal

Order

Talwan Trustee Company Limited (Paramjit Mehami & Parvinder Mehami) must pay Kirsty Maree Munce $3,856.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the adjourned hearings, including the last hearing on 3 April 2025. The tenant is represented by an advocate Mr Seth Wotherspoon.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages after being required to leave the premises due to due to a dangerous building notice issued by Auckland Council on 20 December 2023.
Council inspectors determined that due to a proposed retaining wall not having been properly constructed, the dwelling was at risk of collapse in the ordinary course of events (even in the absence of an earthquake). Excavations near the retaining wall undertaken a year ago were large, deep and left open and unfenced. There was further risk that persons may be injured or killed should they fall into the excavation.
The premises had therefore been deemed to be uninhabitable when the matter was first called up before me at the 24 January 2024 case conference at the Pukekohe Tenancy Tribunal.
The tenant and her family had been sleeping in a tent on the premises with the landlord’s permission.
At the 24 January 2024 case conference, I considered that for all intents and purposes, the tenant has been evicted from the premises pursuant to the Auckland Council’s notice; the tenancy had effectively come to an end the moment the tenant is unable to access or safely occupy the dwelling for residential accommodation.
Accordingly, I ordered the immediate termination of the tenancy on 24 January 2024.
Subsequently, on 21 February 2024, Auckland Council issued a letter to the landlord confirming that after an inspection, the matters set out in its 22 January 2024 Dangerous Building Notice has been complied with and “resolved”. While the 21 February letter referred to an earlier 22 January 2024 dangerous building notice (instead of the 20 December 2023 notice), the February letter appear to refer to the same issue regarding risk of collapse rendering the premises uninhabitable.
The landlord later obtained a healthy homes inspection report from Oncore Healthy Home Assessment’s Dove Maintenance Limited dated 13 March 2024 to indicate that the premises is tenantable again. The report also shows that there was insulation on the premises during this tenancy.
Against these facts, and after substantive hearing from both the landlord and tenant on their respective claims, I now issue my reserved decision as follows.
I address firstly the landlord’s claims.

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 (‘RTA’).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
Only 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.
There was no incoming tenancy inspection report or photos showing the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Consequently, there is no basis for the Tribunal to conclude what damage was caused during the tenancy, rather than prior to the tenancy. The onus was on the landlord to first prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy.
Further, the majority of the landlord’s quotes and invoices adduced in support of the landlord’s claims were issued well after the tenancy has already ended in January 2024.
The landlord submitted confirmation that the premises is insured by Vero Insurance but no evidence has been submitted to show that insurance cover has been sought for the damage claimed by the landlord. Under section 49B(3)(a) RTA, where damage has been 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 only.
I find that the landlord has failed to discharge his onus of proving that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has duly disproved liability for the damage.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claims for compensation and damage to property in their entirety.
I now address the tenant’s claims. Has the landlord breached his maintenance and health and safety obligations under section 45 RTA?
Kirsty Maree Munce claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While insulation has been installed and provided to the premises during the tenancy, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act when they failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and comply with relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
The dwelling was deemed to be uninhabitable upon issuance of the dangerous building notice by Auckland Council in December 2023.
The landlord failed to instal smoke alarms during the tenancy.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I award the tenant compensation in the form of general damages and exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 45 RTA as set out in the table above. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
Kirsty Maree Munce claims the landlord has harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find on the evidence that the landlord has breached section 38(3) RTA by engaging in actions that disrupt the Applicant's quiet enjoyment. The landlord has on a number of occasions and without notice intruded into the tenant’s privacy by entering the property. The landlord also has instructed tradespersons to show up on the premises without notifying the applicant.
However, I do not consider the tenant has proved her allegation that the landlord’s intrusion of privacy to such an extent and circumstance that amount to harassment.
I award compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment in favour of the tenant of $500.00.

Has the landlord complied with his obligations in respect of the bond?

Kirsty Maree Munce claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond during the tenancy. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No reasons had been provided by the landlord on why the bond has not been lodged. Having regard to the above factors, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $900.00 in favour of the tenant is appropriate and just.

Has the landlord provided insurance details as required under the RTA?

The landlord has breached section 13A(1F)(a) RTA by neglecting to provide insurance information with the tenancy agreement.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1AAA) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord has committed the unlawful act intentionally. Having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I find it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord in the sum of $350.00. See section 109(3) RTA.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774699 — Smoke alarms at 1 View Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774699 — Smoke alarms at 1 View Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord complied with his obligations in respect of the bond?

Has the landlord provided insurance details as required under the RTA?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord complied with his obligations in respect of the bond?

Has the landlord provided insurance details as required under the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions