Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5178095 — Property damage at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612
Decided 12 Sept 2025 · Published 12 Sept 2025 · Application 5178095
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,688.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 21 August 2025.
- Ivy Bai from By Realty attended for the landlord. The tenants [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] attended. [The tenant/s] did not attend.
- The tenancy was from 1 July 2024 until 30 January 2025.
- It is to be noted that this premises was being managed by a different property management company during the term of the tenancy and Ms Bai had no involvement with this tenancy. She was present on behalf of the landlord as their new and current property manager. The landlord’s claims
- At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for the following: a. Water rates arrears - $1,406.17 b. Exit cleaning - $500.00 c. Garage door remote replacement - $258.75 d. Costs for broken windows in laundry and basement - $620.48 e. Plastering, sanding and repainting of rooms due to damage - $5,385.00 f. Partial carpet replacement cost - $4,950.00 g. Costs to repair broken window handles and locks - $250.00 h. Reimbursement of the filing fee - $27.00.
- At the hearing, the tenants present did not dispute the claims but said that [The tenant/s] and her guests were responsible for the damage.
- Although it may be the case that most if not all of the claims relate to the tenant [The tenant/s], as all three tenants are named in the tenancy agreement as joint tenants, all three tenants are collectively responsible for payment of the amount awarded in this order. This is how the principle of joint and several liability works.
- It is up to the tenants to agree amongst themselves as to who pays how much for the amount ordered.
- From the landlord’s claims, I have adjusted the water rates arrears to $1,183.22 to not include the final month’s bill. That bill covered for a period when the tenancy was over, hence, the final bill cannot be claimed against these tenants.
- I have also adjusted the $500.00 exit cleaning costs down to $150.00 taking into account the exit inspection report and the additional work required at the premises.
- I have also granted $3,500.00 of the $5,385.00 claimed for plastering, sanding and repainting of rooms due to damage. This was because I acknowledged pre- existing damages and general wear and tear.
- For the carpet, I have granted $2,500.00 of the $4,950.00 claim to adjust for depreciation and pre-existing damage.
- All other claims are granted as sought as they were not disputed by the tenants. Exemplary damages for interfering with smoke alarms
- The landlord claimed the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
- 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). 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 RTA.
- 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) RTA.
- The landlord provided evidence of annual smoke alarm testing and that there was evidence that all 3 alarms having been removed.
- The tenants present at the hearing said that [The tenant/s] had removed them.
- Although, the landlord has proven that one of the three tenants have committed this unlawful act, I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages against all three given the amount already liable by the tenants.
- While I acknowledge that it was an unlawful act, I decline to award any exemplary damages. Bond refunded
- The bond of $4,800.00 was still at the Bond Centre when the landlord made the application to the Tribunal on 25 February 2025.
- Since then, the bond had already been refunded to the landlord. It is likely that the bond was refunded to the previous property management company.
- Therefore, from the amount awarded, I deduct $4,800.00 from amount payable as the bond has already been refunded to the landlord. Filing fee reimbursement
- Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.