What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146690 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 5146690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146690?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13431095-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146690 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 5146690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146690?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13431095-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146690 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 23 January 2025, the tenants filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
On 24 January 2025, the landlord filed a cross application seeking refund of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages.
On 20 November 2025, the Tribunal released its decision, dismissing all of the landlord’s claims and finding one of the tenant’s claims proved.
The landlord immediately filed an application for rehearing. The tenants did not seek a rehearing of their claims.
On 15 January 2026, the Tribunal partially granted the landlord’s application for a rehearing of the following claims only: I.Outstanding water rates totalling $150.70. II.Compensation for: i. Plumbing costs including the shower, kitchen, hot water cylinder, and toilet totalling $1,499.08. ii. Heatpump servicing totalling $185.44 and repairs to the wall beneath the heatpump totalling $200.00. iii. Wooden fence repairs at the front and side of the property totalling $2,557.60. iv. Replacement shower door totalling $1,765.50. v. Replacement of broken bathroom tiles totalling $2,357.80. vi. Kitchen cabinet repairs totalling $2,273.81. vii. Replace broken window latches $350.52 and locks and door handles throughout the property $758.89. viii. Replace sleepout roof and remove and realign building paper $3,657.00. III.Exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms and door handles rendering inoperative any means of escaping from a fire. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks outstanding water rates totalling $150.70 to the end of the tenancy being 23 February 2025.
A water rates bill, for the period 12 November 2024 to 14 February 2025, and a photograph of the water meter was provided. The landlord states the tenant used 71 units of water between 12 November 2024 to 23 February 2025.
The landlord said the outstanding water rates were demanded at a previous hearing of these claims and the debt remains outstanding.
The tenants stated that they have never received a tenant invoice or a copy of the water bill for the period claimed. The tenant said they want the opportunity to check the invoice and raised concerns about potential leaks in the property increasing their water bill. Analysis and decision
Under section 39(3) of the Act, tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. Under section 39(4) of the Act, tenants are liable for the cost of water consumption.
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the water rates have been properly demanded from the tenant. Demanding a bill is paid during a hearing is not considered a proper, separate demand for payment upon which a claim for an unpaid debt can be made.
A demand for payment must typically be sent before a claim to the Tribunal is made to demonstrate that a dispute exists. Tenants must be provided with a copy of the bill to allow them the opportunity to examine the charges, confirm the amount claimed reflect their actual use and provide an opportunity to challenge the amount claimed.
In this case the landlord has failed to demonstrate the amount claimed was properly demanded from the tenants prior to the hearing and the claim is dismissed.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused during the hearing:

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the plumbing?

The landlord seeks $1,499.08 after paying a plumber to undertake a number of repairs at the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord told the Tribunal that upon receiving possession of the property she discovered the following defects: I.The toilet flush mechanism was broken. II.The shower had no hot water and there was no water pressure. III.The hot water cylinder had a slow leak. IV.The silicone between the kitchen sink and waste pipe had been removed and there was a pin hole leak in the kitchen sink.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenants were responsible for the damage and the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. Toilet
The landlord said she believed “brute force” was used to shatter the toilet’s flush mechanism and relied on her plumbers invoice which records: “Arrived to site and found flush buttons on floor and button rods in the bottom of cistern. Existing flush valve broken. Appears to have been damaged. Replaced flush valve. Tested”.
The tenants denied causing any damaged to the property telling the Tribunal it was built in 1971, old, poorly maintained and in poor condition.
With regards to the toilet the tenants denied damaging the flush mechanism, saying it was working when they vacated the property and provided photographs of the toilet at the end of the tenancy which shows the flush mechanism in place. The tenants say the landlord is responsible for breaking the flush mechanism. Shower
The landlord said that while completing the exit inspection she noticed the shower had no hot water and no water pressure. The landlord said her plumber discovered the bolts to the pipes behind the shower wall had been loosened causing water to flow down the interior of the bathroom wall and pool underneath the house on the ground vapour barrier.
The landlord said that photographs taken underneath the property show that the water had not been pooling for long as evidence by the lack of mould or water staining on the floor joists. The landlord suggested the damage was caused at the end of the tenancy
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant was a home handyman who undertook bathroom renovations and would have had the skills and tools necessary to cause this damage.
The plumbing invoice records the following: “Poor hot water pressure at shower. Existing shower mixer old and in poor condition. Replaced shower mixer”
The tenants deny causing any damage to the showers plumbing. They said they had had issues with the shower losing pressure during the tenancy which resulted in them issuing a 14-day breach. The tenants also noted the landlord’s own plumbing invoice which records the shower mixer was old and in poor condition which they say contributed to the plumbing issues in the shower. Hot water cylinder
The landlord said there was a slow leak under the hot water cylinder caused by bolts being loosened. A photograph showing a very small area of water staining on the floor under the hot water cylinder was provided. The landlord alleges the tenants undid the plumbing bolts at the end of the tenancy to damage the property.
The landlord’s plumber’s invoice records: “No visible leaks at hot water cylinder and Ajax valve looks in fairly good condition.”
The tenants deny loosening any bolts or plumbing fittings in the property and specifically under the hot water cylinder. The tenants blamed the landlord for the water staining saying they never had any issue with the hot water cylinder leaking during the tenancy. Kitchen Sink
The landlord claims the tenants removed silicon sealant between the sink and waste water pipes and, drilled a pin hole in the base of the sink which cause a slow leak damaging the kitchen cupboards. The landlord claims the damage was caused recently as evidence by the lack of mould and mildew build up.
The tenant denied causing any damage to the kitchen sink and waste water plumbing and told the Tribunal they had informed the landlord of the leak in October 2024 when she attended the property to measure up for blinds. The tenant said a plumber never attended the property to repair the leak, which they managed by placing a bucket under the sink to catch the drips.
The tenants produced their own photographs of the sink and plumbing. The photographs show a bucket under the sink and a stained piece of plumbers tape which the tenants said had lifted over the area where the pinhole leak was located.
The tenants drew the Tribunal’s attention to the comments made by the landlord’s plumber which records: “Crox nuts, trap and waste leaking under kitchen sink. Also old and in poor condition. Replaced trap and waste, with wew[sic] hemp to crox connections. Repaired pinhole leak in kitchen sink bowl.” Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord has proved the tenants caused damage to the plumbing during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal did not hear from the plumber who undertook the repairs and was therefore unable to determine how the plumber concluded the toilet was damaged or what information they based that assessment on. The tenants denied damaging the toilet and produced photographs showing the flush mechanism in place. The Tribunal can not rule out the possibility the toilet flush mechanism was old and broke through general wear and tear.
The plumbing invoice records the hot water cylinder did not leak and was in good condition. The landlord claims the bolts were loosened but this was not corroborated by her plumber’s invoice.
The plumber’s invoice records the shower mixer was old and in poor condition as was the crox nuts, trap, and waste under the kitchen sink. This is a maintenance issue caused by wear and tear and not damage caused by the tenants.
No evidence was provided proving the condition of the kitchen sink at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenants produced a photograph showing a stained piece of tape over the damaged area. Given the lack of evidence proving the condition of the sink at the commencement of the tenancy and the photograph showing the leak was previously repaired with a now damaged piece of plumbers tape, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probability that the tenants are responsible for the damage.
The claims for plumbing costs are dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the heatpump and the wall beneath the heatpump?
The landlord seeks compensation for servicing the heat pump totalling $185.44 and the cost of repairs to the wall beneath the heat pump totalling $200.00. An invoice for the heat pump service was provided.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy she had the heatpump serviced and the technician was unable to find what caused the drain to overflow damaging the wall. The landlord believes the tenants deliberately blocked the drain to damage the property.
The landlord provided an undated photograph which they say was taken at the commencement of the tenancy which shows the heatpump and wall in good condition. A photograph was provided showing an area of damage underneath the heatpump at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants deny blocking the heatpump drain causing damage to the wall. The tenants told the Tribunal that they regularly cleaned the filter and that for the duration of their three-and-a-half-year tenancy the heatpump was not serviced. The tenants said they raised the issue of the heatpump leaking with the landlord in October 2024 but no action was taken to investigate the issue. The tenants told the Tribunal they believe the lack of servicing caused the heatpump to leak and said they shouldn’t be liable for the cost of the repairs because they notified the landlord of the issue which she failed to address.
The landlord accepts the heatpump was not serviced during the tenancy but commented there is no requirement for regular servicing of these appliances. The landlord denied being told about the heatpump leaking. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the wall under the heatpump at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied the wall under the heatpump was damaged during the tenancy.
However, having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the damage. That is because, there was nothing put before the Tribunal to corroborate the landlord’s assertion the tenants blocked the heatpump drain. The tenants raise the issue that the heatpump was not regularly serviced. The Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that the damage was caused by a failure to service the heatpump . Further, regular servicing of the appliance may have identified an issue with the heatpump and prevented the drain from overflowing, damaging the wall. The claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the fences?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,557.60 after paying a contractor to repair damage to the front and side fences following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report which was signed by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. The report did not record any damage or defects with the property.
The landlord produced photographs which they say were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the fence at the front of the property to be stained black on the side facing the street. The fence is undamaged.
The landlord produced photographs of the fence they say were taken a couple of days after the tenancy ended. These photographs show the fence at the front of the property by the letter box is damaged and the gate has damage close to the hinge. The landlord also produced a photograph of a weathered side gate that they say the tenants damaged.
The tenants denied damaging the fences and challenged the reliability of the landlord’s photographs saying they were not representative of the condition of the fences at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenants stated the fences were only stained on one side meaning the wood was in poor condition on the side exposed to the elements.
The tenants said damage to the fence was caused during Cyclone Gabrielle when a tree was blown over and crashed onto the fence. The tenants produced photographs in support of this claim. The tenants said they removed the tree themselves and did not report the damage to the landlord due to the breakdown in their relationship. The tenants said the damage to the gate was caused by movement in strong winds as the latch did not catch and the drop bolts did not hold the gate shut.
The tenants produced their own photographs which showed the front fence to be warped, weathered, with deep splits in the wood, and the side gate to be in poor condition with rusty nails and weathered wood. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the damage to the fence occurred during the tenancy. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for that damage. The Tribunal heard from the tenants that the front fence was damaged during Cyclone Gabrielle and provided photographs in support of their claim. The Tribunal is satisfied that the cyclone was responsible for that damage and the damage to the front gate.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants have damage the side fence. The evidence provided by the tenant show the area to be significantly weathered and in poor condition. The Tribunal is satisfied that any damage is a result of fair wear and tear as the result of exposure to the elements and is a maintenance cost of the landlords. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the shower door?

The landlord seeks compensation to replace the shower door totalling $1,765.50 and provided a quote to complete the work.
The landlord claimed the tenants damaged the shower door by breaking the plastic hooks which hold the three sections together and provided a photograph of the damage. A pre-tenancy photograph shows the three-panel shower door concertinaed to one side.
The tenants deny damaging the plastic clips on the shower door. The tenants said the shower door was made of acrylic and plastic and was probably installed in the 1980s. They said this type of material deteriorates over time, becomes brittle, and can break through fair wear and tear. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal was unable to properly compare and contrast the shower door clips at the beginning and end of the tenancy. That is because the photographs of the shower door at the commencement of the tenancy obscures the clips. The landlord has failed to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.
Even if the Tribunal is wrong on this point, and the shower door clips were broken during the tenancy, the Tribunal would not have ordered compensation. This is because the plastic clips in the end of tenancy photographs appear old and brittle which would be consistent with deterioration due to age and fair wear and tear.

Did the tenant damage the bathroom tiles?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,357.80 to retile the bathroom after they claim the tenant deliberately damaged the floor tiles. A quote for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided undated pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the tiles to be in an unbroken condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided end of tenancy inspection photographs which show the bathroom tiles to be cracked and broken.
The landlord provided an e-mail dated 21 February 2025 from their contractor who prepared the repair quote which states: “It looks like impact damage. It looks like the tiles were damaged one by one instead of structural failure, which normally shows 1 long break line over multiple tiles.”
The quote records the contractor is a licensed building practitioner with 10 years managing projects.
The tenants deny damaging the tiles and said the damage was caused by a breakdown of the chipboard subfloor due to a leak in the grout. The tenants state the tiles should have been laid on a slate and tile underlay to prevent movement in the tiles caused by moisture damage. The tenants produced an email from a tiler which states the floor had an inherent defect which caused the cracking. The tenants produced photographs showing the tiles were laid on a chipboard sub floor.
Both parties challenged the evidence of the other’s contractor. The tenants said the landlord’s contractor was not qualified to make an assessment of the tile flooring as they are not a registered master builder. The landlord claims the tenant either wrote the email themselves or the person who completed it was a friend. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tiles were damaged during the tenancy. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage. The Tribunal cannot rule out the possibility the tiles were damaged due to an inherent defect with the subfloor causing the tiles to move and crack. On that basis the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the kitchen cabinets?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,273.81 after paying a contractor to repair the kitchen cabinets damaged by the leak under the sink.
The landlord states the house was maintained in a good condition but accepted there was some wear and tear to the kitchen cupboards at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which showed the kitchen cupboards under the sink were bloated and water damaged.
The tenants denied being responsible for the damage to the kitchen cupboards and stated that the kitchen was in poor condition which was exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to repair the leak. The tenants pointed to end of tenancy photographs which showed the kitchen hinges to be rusty, suggesting the damage had occurred over an extended period. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal has already dismissed the landlord’s claim for plumbing costs in respect of the waste water pipe and kitchen sink repair. The Tribunal heard that the leaks were reported to the landlord in October 2024 and the plumbing invoice recorded that the kitchen plumbing was old and in poor condition. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied that kitchen cabinets were damaged during the tenancy but finds the damaged was caused by aged plumbing that was in poor condition and not as a result of the tenants actions. The claim is dismissed. Is the tenant responsible for damage to the locks and door handles and window latches?
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $758.89 after paying a locksmith to attend the property and change all of the locks and door handles, and $350.52 to refix window latches. Invoices in the amounts claimed were provided.
The landlord told the Tribunal that every door handle in the property had stopped latching and were limp. The landlord blamed the tenants for the damage saying they must have wrenched the handles causing them to break.
The locksmith’s invoice records: “The existing level handles have been forced down, damaging the latches and internal mechanism of locks. This in my opinion not considered to be consistent with normal ‘wear and tear’. I would suggest this damage has been caused intentionally.”
The landlord said that the latches for the lounge window had been removed and needed to be reinstated to make the property secure.
The landlord produced exit inspection photographs which shows the door handles hanging down and the window latch sitting on the windowsill as evidence of the damage.
The tenant denies liability for the charges saying: I.They should not have to pay for a lock change as all keys for the property were returned. II.The locksmith is a friend of the landlord’s and his assessment of the handles cannot be relied upon. III.The door handles in the property were in a poor worn condition with handles drooping down at the commencement of the tenancy. IV.The window latch had seized and they were unable to open the window. V.The tenants denied damaging a round door handle and blamed the landlord for the dent. Analysis and decision
The landlord provided undated pre-tenancy inspection photographs to prove the condition of the door handles at the commencement of the tenancy. These photographs show the door handles in the property to be drooping downwards. This evidence does not support the landlord’s claim that the door handles were in good working condition at the commencement of the tenancy but instead shows evidence of wear and tear.
The landlord relies on the evidence of her locksmith to prove the tenants damaged the door handles. The locksmith did not attend the hearing to give evidence or provide and explanation as to how they came to the conclusion the handles had been forced down or that the damage was caused intentionally.
If there is any additional damage to the door handles the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was caused by the tenants wrenching on them as opposed to further fair wear and tear through use and age. The claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal was unable to find any evidence proving the condition of the window latches at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenants claim the window latches were seized and that was the cause of the damage. The Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the window latches at the beginning and end of the tenancy and the claim for compensation is dismissed.

Did the tenant damage the sleepout roof?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,657.00 after paying a contractor to replace the sleepout roof and remove and realign building paper.
The landlord claims the tenants removed the sleepout roof disturbing the building paper before replacing the roof and creating a hole in the roofing iron.
The tenants deny removing the sleepout roof, damaging the building paper or drilling a hole in the iron. The tenants told the Tribunal the roofing iron was in poor condition and provided photographs of water damage and mildew on the ceiling inside the sleepout ( which was the basis for one of their claims which the Tribunal dismissed). Analysis and decisions
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs were undated. The photographs show a single side of the sleep out with no visible building paper. The end of tenancy photographs show a single side of the sleep out with exposed building paper.
The tenants photographs show water damage and mildew inside the sleepout and a large hole in the roofing iron with what appears to be evidence of corrosion.
Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenants have caused the damage to the building paper or to the roofing iron.
There were no pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the roofing iron at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal was not provided photographs capturing all sides of the sleepout. Therefore the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the roofing iron or the building paper. There is a possibility that the roof was damaged by rust corrosion and that the building paper was exposed on one of the other sides of the sleepout. The claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant interfere with a means of fire escape?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms and broke the door handles interfering with a means of fire escape.
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. See section 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. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord claims the tenants removed all of the smoke alarms from inside the property and provided an end of tenancy photograph showing a smoke alarm lying on a windowsill with its battery removed. The landlord also said the tenants intentionally wrenched the door handles damaging the latches and relied on their locksmiths invoice to evidence the intentionality of the damage.
The tenant states that in their claim for compensation, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, they provided photographs which showed every smoke alarm in the property was expired and did not work. The tenants denied damaging the door handles and said that the latches did not latch.
The landlord disputed the smoke alarms were expired and claimed the evidence was planted by the tenants. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants have interfered with a means of fire escape.
The tenancy agreement records that there was at least one smoke alarm in the property. However, the location of the smoke alarms or the expiry date(s) of the device(s) is not recorded.
There were no entry inspection photographs showing the smoke alarms in situ or of their expiry date.
The tenants said, to evidence one of their claims against the landlord, they took down the smoke alarms to inspect them and discovered the devices were expired and should not have been in the property.
There was no evidence presented by the landlord showing that the smoke alarms were routinely tested or subject to a scheduled replacement.
The Tribunal has already dismissed the landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the door handles. The Tribunal heard the latches were broken and did not catch. There was no suggestion that the broken latches would prevent a door from being opened.
On that basis the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants interfered with a means of fire escape and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
The Tribunal previously ordered suppression of the names and identifying particulars of the parties in this case and that is continued.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146690 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146690 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the plumbing?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the fences?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the shower door?

Did the tenant damage the bathroom tiles?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the kitchen cabinets?

Did the tenant damage the sleepout roof?

Did the tenant interfere with a means of fire escape?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the plumbing?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the fences?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the shower door?

Did the tenant damage the bathroom tiles?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the kitchen cabinets?

Did the tenant damage the sleepout roof?

Did the tenant interfere with a means of fire escape?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions