What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5130269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5130269?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $74.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,295.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,570.47 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $103.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130269?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11402391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5130269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5130269?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $74.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,295.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,570.47 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $103.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130269?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11402391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5130269 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130269 — net $2,871.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and rent arrears to 03 March 2025	$3,570.47	Rent and rent arrears to 03 March 2025
Window repairs	$74.93	Window repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$103.50	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs to kitchen cupboard	$1,295.43	Repairs to kitchen cupboard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,871.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,871.33

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130269 — net $2,871.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and rent arrears to 03 March 2025	$3,570.47	Rent and rent arrears to 03 March 2025
Window repairs	$74.93	Window repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$103.50	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs to kitchen cupboard	$1,295.43	Repairs to kitchen cupboard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,871.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,871.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The parties agree that the tenancy will end at midnight on Monday 03 March 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,871.33 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] appeared for the landlord. Both tenants appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 28 August 2020. On 15 January 2024, the landlord filed a claim seeking to end the tenancy for failure to remedy a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears. The landlord also claimed that the tenant was liable for damage to a window and kitchen cabinetry under the sink and had removed the smoke alarms. In the application, the landlord sought rent arrears, refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for the damage, the cost of replacing the smoke alarms, and exemplary damages.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
At the commencement of the hearing, the landlord advised that termination for failing to remedy the breach notice for rent arrears was no longer sought, as the parties had mutually agreed to end the tenancy. The tenant’s advised that they had been in a relationship, which was ending, necessitating the termination of the tenancy. The parties agreed that the tenancy is to end at midnight on Monday, 03 March 2025. The tenant is severally and jointly liable for rent arrears and rent up to that date. The bond is refunded to the landlord. Any payments made by the tenant to the landlord between the hearing and the end of the tenancy will be applied to the debt.
The landlord also advised that the parties had reached agreements concerning the other claims. However, after speaking with the tenant, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to proceed with the hearing and consider the evidence. Damage Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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) if the damage is not covered.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act states that a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the property, or the need for any repairs. A tenant who fails to advise the landlord may be liable for any consequential damage.
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Window
During an inspection on 30 April 2024, the landlord discovered that a window in one of the bedrooms had been damaged. The landlord has produced a photograph which shows the glass missing and the window covered with cling wrap. There is no dispute that the window was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The window was repaired at a cost of $189.21. The tenant has made payments toward the repair, with $74.93 remaining.
The tenant states that the window was difficult to open and had been damaged when they became annoyed and pushed it open with their fist, using force. I am satisfied the damage was the result of carelessness. The landlord has insurance for damage to windows, with an excess of $400.00 per claim. The cost of repair is less than the excess. I award the amount claimed. Kitchen cabinet under the sink
During a routine inspection on 16 May 2024, the landlord discovered that the inside of the kitchen cupboard under the sink was water damaged. The cause of the damage was identified as a slow leak from the waste pipe under the sink. The landlord states that the cupboard was empty, suggesting that the tenant was aware of the leak, but it had not been reported.
The landlord state that they do not usually look inside cupboards during an inspection but that their attention was drawn to the matter because the top of the cupboard door was noticeably swollen. [The property manager/s] states that at previous inspections he had not observed the swelling as his focus had been on the fact that the kitchen was not being kept reasonably clean and tidy.
[The property manager/s] states the landlord’s insurance did not accept the claim as it was deemed to be “gradual damage not hidden.” The landlord was able to repair the inside of the cupboard for $1,495.00. The tenant was sent an invoice during the tenancy and has paid $200.00 toward the repair. However, this does not mean that they are liable.
The tenant states that around August 2022, an electrical fire damaged the bench top. During its replacement, the tenant states that they informed the then property manager “C” about the leak. The tenant states that C was their main property manager from the commencement of the tenancy to around October 2022. The bench top was replaced, but the leak was not addressed. The tenant states that they emptied the cupboard of its contents, and it was not used again. The tenant stated after raising it with C the once, they had not raised it again. After C left, the tenant states they have had several different property managers conduct inspections, including most recently [The property manager/s]. The tenant was not present during inspections.
[The property manager/s] stated that he had been back through the records but could not find any evidence of the matter being raised with the property manager concerned. This does not mean that it was not raised. I have no reason to question the tenant’s evidence that they told the property manager concerned.
There is no dispute that the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, for the tenant to be liable the landlord must establish that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
If the damage is found to be more than fair wear and tear, the onus will then be on the tenant to show that they did not carelessly or intentionally, by and act or omission, allow the damage to occur.
A question has arisen whether a properly conducted tenancy inspection should have involved opening the cupboard under the sink and checking the plumbing or whether doing so without reasonable grounds would amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s privacy.
After raising the matter once should a reasonable prudent tenant have raised the matter at least one more time. If so, was the consequential damage the result of carelessness. Decision
In my view opening the cupboard door during an inspection without reasonable grounds to believe that damage may have been occurring inside was not within the scope of a routine inspection and may have been an unreasonable interference. However, tenants are obliged to advise the landlord of any damage they discover. This will involve damage occurring which is not evident to the landlord. Having raised it the once, when the matter was not addressed, a reasonably prudent tenant would have raised the matter again. Regrettably, this did not occur. I am satisfied that, although not liable for the initial leak, the tenant is liable for the consequential damage. I award the balance sought. Smoke alarms.
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
At the commencement of the tenancy, there were two smoke alarms: one in the kitchen / dining room, the other in the hallway. The smoke alarm in the kitchen / dining room was not required to meet the Smoke Alarm Regulations, the smoke alarm in the hallway, which was within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom, was required by law. The smoke alarms were battery operated.
During a routine inspection on 30 April 2024, [The property manager/s] discovered that both smoke alarms had been removed. The hallway alarm was missing. The alarm from the kitchen / dining room was located on a shelf in the kitchen with its battery removed. The tenant was not present at the inspection. The landlord arranged for the immediate replacement of both alarms. A handy person installed two new smoke alarms in the same locations (leaving the empty brackets in place). The new alarms had in built batteries.
During an inspection on 30 October 2024, the landlord found that both alarms had been removed. The landlord replaced the alarms immediately. Once again, the tenant was not present to provide an explanation.
The landlord is claiming the cost of replacing the alarms. Law
Landlords who do not comply with the smoke alarm regulations commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7500.00 may be awarded.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004 (s 40(2)(ab) of the Act). The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...,” which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00 (s 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the Act).
Removing the smoke alarms the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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 (s 109(3) of the Act).
One of the tenants is autistic. A characteristic of their autism is that they are hypersensitive to high pitch sounds, which causes significant discomfort. The tenant states that the alarm in the kitchen went off regularly for no apparent reason, while the one in the hallway went off less frequently but also for no apparent reason. The tenant states when this occurred, they removed the alarm from its bracket and took the battery out to stop the noise. Later, they would put them back up again. They did not report issues with the alarms to the landlord.
On 30 April 2024, they noted that new alarms had been installed. The tenant states that the new alarms started to behave in the same way. Once again, the tenant did not advise the landlord. Due to the configuration of the new alarms, they were unable to remove the batteries. One of the alarms was disposed of, and the other cannot be located.
The landlord state they take their obligations regarding smoke alarms seriously and are concerned at the risk of serious injury or death and potential for serious damage to property caused by fire. For these reasons, it is clearly in the interests of the landlord and tenant, as well as the public, that they meet their respective obligations under the Regulations. Removing a smoke alarm may also void the landlord’s insurance, potentially making the tenant liable for the full cost of any fire related damage. Although they initially sought an award of exemplary damages the landlord advises that they no longer do so.
The mother of the tenant concerned has attended the hearing in support. Prior to the hearing, the tenant made a late request to be represented by his mother. Due to the timing of the request and the absence of supporting evidence, the request was declined. The tenant’s mother has remained in the hearing in support. The tenant has responded to the claims appropriately, while their former partner, the other tenant, has primarily addressed the Tribunal.
Having heard and observed the tenant give evidence, and considering their involvement with mental health services, I am satisfied that their autism was a significant factor in what occurred. While this does not excuse removing the smoke alarms and failing to report the matter to the landlord, it provides context to their actions. There is no doubt that going forward both tenants are now fully aware of the serious consequences of removing smoke alarms and of failing to report any faults to the landlord. Taking these matters into account, I am satisfied that in the circumstances, an award of exemplary damages is not warranted.
I award the cost of the replacement alarms. Costs
Because [The landlord’s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds relating to the tenant’s emotional health and wellbeing to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130269 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130269 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions