What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190936 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 5190936?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Carpet Mat: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $117.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190936?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11907844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190936 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 5190936?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Carpet Mat: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $117.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190936?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11907844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190936 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190936 — net $2,804.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage as detailed below (insurance excesses	$2,000.00	Damage as detailed below (insurance excesses
Lock/key replacement	$117.60	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$900.00	20. The claim is proven.
Oven repairs	$90.00	Oven repairs
Missing carpet mat	$200.00	Missing carpet mat
Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$750.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	55. Weighing the factors set out in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, I will award exemplary damages of $750.00.
Net award	$2,804.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,804.60

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 21 August 2024 and was supposed to end on 20 November 2024.

The tenant did not leave the premises at the end of the fixed term.

The landlord obtained an order for possession on 9 December 2024. 1 The tenant was evicted on 16 December 2024.

This application seeks compensation for damage, cleaning, repairs, change of locks and replacement of chattels, and exemplary damages under several headings.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 28 May 2025. [The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the application was served on the tenant by email. 2 The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. 3 Damage

Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 4

There was damage to the premises during the tenancy including: a. Childrens writing on walls, and damage to walls. b. Heat pump ripped from wall. c. Bathroom fittings removed (shower set, toilet roll holder).

The repairs, painting, and plumbing work was covered by the landlord’s insurer, but four excesses were applied for the different incidences of damage.

[The landlord/s] claim seeks the total of the insurance excesses.

The damage is clearly intentional, and it occurred during the tenancy.

[The landlord/s] said that Ms Dodd told her that there was a break-in during her tenancy.

Tenants are not liable for damage caused by someone who has entered the property without their consent. 1 [Redacted] 2 Section 91A(2)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 92 RTA 4 Section 49B & 41 RTA

However, the burden of proof is with the tenant to establish that the damage occurred in those circumstances.

In this instance: a. Ms Dodd not submit any evidence and she did not participate in the hearing. b. Neither [The landlord/s] nor the Tribunal was provided with evidence that Ms Dodd reported a break in to the police. c. There is no evidence of any forced entry.

Therefore it is not proven that the damage occurred during a break in. The tenant is liable for the damage.

The cost of repairs exceeded the insurance excess for each of the incidents of damage.

The claim is proven.

The stove was also damaged during the tenancy. Someone has pulled the oven out, damaged the plug and wiring at the back, and pushed the stove back in again. The damage is clearly intentional. It left the stove unsafe.

[The landlord/s] electrician carried out some basic repairs to make the stove safe.

The claim is proven. Cleaning, change of locks, carpet mat

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

[The landlord/s] initially claimed $1,000 for “cleaning walls 15 hours and ceiling, carpet, blocked toilet removal and lawn”.

She then provided a document entitled Compensation sought for Tribunal Hearing claiming $1200 to $1500 for cleaning “as insurance did not cover all the marks on the wall mowing and block toilet clean and 2 x bathroom clean and cleaning stove and freezer”.

She then provided a document entitled 5190936 Damages claiming $1200 for “clean up cost 30 hours wiping walls bathrooms carpet at $40ph”.

My finding is that: a. [The landlord/s] accepted an insurance claim payment that included a quote for painting scribbled on walls. Removal of writing should not also be part of the cleaning claim. b. The photographs show that the premises were left in a very unclean and untidy state. c. $30 per hour is an appropriate rate for owner cleaning.

I will award 30 hours of cleaning at $30 per hour.

Change of locks is necessary in an eviction. The landlord incurred this cost because the tenant failed to vacate the premises. The cost of change of locks is proven. The tenant is liable for this cost.

There was a carpet mat in the garage at the beginning of the tenancy. The mat was missing at the end. The cost claimed for replacement is fair and reasonable. Water damage

There was a leak from the shower drain during the tenancy.

Water tracked underneath the bathroom floor and wet the carpet in the hot water cupboard. The water also soaked into the wall.

[The landlord/s] only became aware of the damage at her inspection on 21 November.

She asked Ms Dodd about it, and Ms Dodd said that it had always been like that. She asked Ms Dodd why she didn’t let her know about it sooner, and Ms Dodd did not reply.

Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible, or any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. 5

[The landlord/s] said that the carpet had dried out when she re-took possession in December. Apart from repairing the actual leak (which her plumber did at no cost) she has not had to do any other repair work.

The tenant breached her legal duty by not telling [the landlord/s] about the leak, but [the landlord/s] has not incurred any loss as a consequence of the breach. Therefore, there is no basis for an award of compensation. Exemplary damages – smoke alarms

There were two working and compliant smoke alarms in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.

At her inspection in October, [the landlord/s] noted that one of the smoke alarms was missing. She told Ms Dodd to reinstate the alarm. 5 Section 40(1)(d) RTA

Ms Dodd did not reinstate that alarm.

At the end of the tenancy the other alarm was damaged. It is a hard-wired alarm and it appears that someone attempted to rip it out.

The smoke alarms were removed and damaged during the tenancy. Ms Dodd and her two young children were the only permitted occupants. In the absence of any other evidence, it is reasonable to infer that Ms Dodd removed and damaged the smoke alarms.

It is an unlawful act for a tenant to interfere with the means of escape from fire, which includes smoke alarms. 6 Exemplary damages of up to $4,000 can apply.

In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 7 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

The usual approach of the Tribunal to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 8

In this instance: a. The removal of the alarm must have been intentional. b. There is no evidence to indicate that there any issues / malfunctions with the alarms. c. [The landlord/s] gave Ms Dodd the opportunity to reinstate the smoke alarm and she failed to do so. d. By the end of the tenancy there were no functioning smoke alarms at the premises. e. The effect of the tenant’s action was to put lives and property at risk.

Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Exemplary damages – failure to quit premises

Tenants must leave the premises at the end of the tenancy. 9 6 Section 40(2)(ab) RTA 7 Section 109 RTA 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 9 Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA

Failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500 can apply.

In this instance, there may have been a question about whether the tenancy terminated at the end of the fixed term or whether it became a periodic tenancy.

Ms Dodd had the opportunity to have say about that at the Tenancy Tribunal hearing in December. Ms Dodd did not participate in that hearing.

The Tribunal then made an order granting immediate possession to the landlord. A copy of that order was sent to Ms Dodd.

Ms Dodd did not leave.

[The landlord/s] enforced that possession order. On the day of the eviction, 16 December 2024, Ms Dodd was still at the premises and did not seem to have made any effort to pack up and move.

Ms Dodd failed to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy. No “reasonable excuse” for this failure has been offered. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages.

Ms Dodd’s failure to leave caused the landlord cost and inconvenience.

Weighing the factors set out in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, I will award exemplary damages of $750.00. Filing fee, bond, name suppression

The landlord has been successful in this application. I must award the landlord the filing fee. 10 Name suppression is granted to the landlord. 11

The bond will be released to the tenant.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190936 — net $2,804.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage as detailed below (insurance excesses	$2,000.00	Damage as detailed below (insurance excesses
Lock/key replacement	$117.60	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$900.00	20. The claim is proven.
Oven repairs	$90.00	Oven repairs
Missing carpet mat	$200.00	Missing carpet mat
Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$750.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	55. Weighing the factors set out in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, I will award exemplary damages of $750.00.
Net award	$2,804.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,804.60