What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225011 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 5225011?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $13.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Gate Doorstop & Padl…: $113.94 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Water Hose Holder: $16.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Shelf: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12010773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225011 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 5225011?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $13.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Gate Doorstop & Padl…: $113.94 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Water Hose Holder: $16.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Shelf: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12010773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225011 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225011 — 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 5225011 — net $631.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: House, garage & storage room	$250.00	Cleaning: House, garage & storage room
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling	$650.00	Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling
Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock	$113.94	Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock
Replace kitchen lightbulb	$13.88	Replace kitchen lightbulb
Replace missing water hose holder	$16.98	Replace missing water hose holder
Replace wardrobe shelf	$10.00	Replace wardrobe shelf
Insurance excess for replacement bath	$750.00	Insurance excess for replacement bath
Insurance excess for loss of rent	$750.00	Insurance excess for loss of rent
Exemplary damages-removing smoke alarm	$2,000.00	removing smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$631.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$631.80

Claims and awards for application 5225011 — net $631.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: House, garage & storage room

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: House, garage & storage room

Rubbish removal

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling

Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock

Amount: $113.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock

Replace kitchen lightbulb

Amount: $13.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace kitchen lightbulb

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Exterior wooden patio damage
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Smoke Alarms — Smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Stellar Recruitment LP must pay [The landlord/s] $631.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Kelly representing the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background facts
This is a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 30 January 2023 and ended on 17 February 2024. The parties then renewed the agreement for a fixed term commencing on 17 February 2024 and ending on 22 February 2025. The premises are a four-bedroom wooden cottage dating from the 1930s.
The tenant is a limited partnership and rented the premises to provide accommodation for staff employed as plumbers, electricians, and builders. Staff are mainly Philippine immigrants contracted to work on various construction sites. Ms Kelly advised that the partnership has 45 similar tenancies throughout New Zealand. Ms Kelly is one of the partnership’s housing co-coordinators employed to manage the tenancies and their staff occupying the premises. This includes carrying out regular inspections with their inspection reports shared with the landlord. During this tenancy, Ms Kelly said there was a turnover of approximately 20 staff that occupied the premises over the course of the tenancy with six occupants residing at the premises at any one time, as permitted by the tenancy agreement. Two previous housing co-ordinators largely managed this tenancy.
The terms of the tenancy agreements specifically provide that the tenant, Stellar Recruitment LP, is solely responsible for paying rent and maintenance of the property; accepts full liability for any damages/issues caused by tenants/staff. The agreements also provide that if requested by the landlord, the tenant will share details about staff staying at the property. References in this decision to tenant/s includes both Stellar and their staff who were occupying the premises.
The tenant decided not to renew the fixed term tenancy ending on 22 February 2025. However, the parties agreed to an extension of the tenancy until 28 February 2025 to enable Ms Kelly further time to clear furniture and other belongings from the premises for which she needed to organise a moving company. Due to difficulty organising a moving company, these items remained stored in the garage, storage room and on the patio. The tenant advised the landlord of this but was able to have the items collected on 3 March 2025.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord seeks $460 for cleaning the interior of the premises based on a cleaning quote they obtained. However, they did not use the service that prepared the quote and did the work themselves. They also seek further costs of $80 for their time cleaning the garage/storage room and $70 for disposing of some left-over rubbish.
After carefully considering the photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy produced in evidence, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, the cleaning work required in those areas as shown in the photos was relatively minor and I consider an award of $250 to cover the landlord’s time cleaning is a reasonable award. Gardens and lawns
There is evidence of the tenants parking their cars on the lawn from at least early May 2024 to 2 July 2024 which damaged the lawn. The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy, the lawn was not reinstated to the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. They also say that the tenants did not mow the lawns and did not remove weeds and green waste. They seek costs to resow parts of the lawn and tidy the lawns and gardens.
I have carefully reviewed the pre-tenancy inspection photos supplied by the landlord taken in January 2023 before the tenancy commenced and photos supplied by both the landlord and the tenant at the end of the tenancy. I consider that the lawns and garden were left in substantially the same condition at the end of the tenancy as they were at the start. The pre-tenancy photos clearly show patches of missing or browned-off lawn and areas where the dirt is visible. Similarly the pre-tenancy photos show areas where vines and weeds are showing through the fence near the pebbled path.
In summary, from a comparison of the photos, I consider the tenants left the lawns and gardens in reasonably tidy condition and similar to the condition they were in at the start of the tenancy. The claims for gardening and lawns are therefore dismissed.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: one lightbulb in the kitchen, a water hose holder, a doorstop latch and padlock for an exterior gate. Ms Kelly argued that the hose holder looked rusty in the pre-tenancy photos and that the exterior gate doorstop and padlock likely deteriorated in the weather. However, because those items were missing and not reported to the landlord, the tenant cannot prove that they had deteriorated through fair wear and tear. Therefore, I award the costs of the replacement items. I have not awarded the landlord their costs claimed to install the lightbulb and gate doorstop and padlock of $60. I consider it is reasonable for the landlord to wear this cost on the basis that a landlord is expected to spend some time on cleaning and maintenance in between tenancies as part of operating a rental business. Also the time required to install these items would be minimal.
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.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
Where damage is proved, and an item is replaced I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I deal with each of the claims for damage in turn. In determining whether the tenant is liable for the damage I have reviewed the oral and written evidence of the parties including relevant photos before, during, and after the tenancy ended. Bathroom ceiling mould
Despite multiple directions to the tenants to ventilate and clean the bathroom, mould developed on the ceiling that could not be removed. I find this is careless damage caused by the tenants. The ceiling required repainting. The landlord provided a painting quote, but this was for the bathroom ceiling and walls. I consider that the ceiling is likely half the surface area of the bathroom with a window and some tiles on two other walls. The landlord says it was last painted in 2022 making the paintwork 3 years old at the end of the tenancy. Painted surfaces in a bathroom should last approximately 10 years according to current depreciation guidelines. Therefore, I award the landlord $523.25. This equates to half the quote of $1,300 plus GST, being $747.50, reduced for depreciation by a further 30% (3/10 years). Bath damage
I am satisfied based on photos during the tenancy and photos taken at the end that there was a dent in the bath which allowed water to leak through and other chips and scratches which occurred during the tenancy. I find this is likely careless damage because there are repeated instances of damage. The bath required replacement. The cost to remove the old bath and install a new one was $4,164.15 excluding the cost of the replacement bath supplied by the landlord. The cost was covered by the landlord’s insurance with an excess of $750 deducted which the landlord seeks from the tenant. The age of the bath is unknown but would be expected to last a lifetime according to current depreciation guidelines. Therefore, I consider it is reasonable to award the excess. Exterior red brick patio damage
There is undisputed evidence that the tenants broke the front exterior gate lock in order to park their cars on the lawn and the red brick patio area. I have already dealt with the lawn and found that it was left in in reasonable condition. However, the landlord claims that parking cars on the brick patio resulted in significant damage causing the bricks and mortar to crack and the ground underneath to sink in various places due to the weight of the cars. The landlord says the patio was not designed to support vehicles. She also says that the tenants continued to park on the patio after multiple warnings not to do so. She referred to various photos taken before and after the tenancy which she says show the damage.
The landlord has obtained a quote to remove the bricks, reinstate the ground level underneath and lay a new concrete pad (instead of bricks) costing $7,800. The damage is not covered by insurance because the insurers assessed that it was gradual damage over a long period of time which is not covered.
Ms Kelly disputes the claim saying that: pre-tenancy photos show that the patio was already cracked in places; the age of the patio is unknown, but it is likely quite old; and damage and ground subsidence could have been caused by seismic activity.
I have carefully reviewed the available evidence including emails between the parties at the relevant time and various pre-and post-tenancy photos. I record the following facts as I find them: a. The tenancy agreement does not stipulate that cars cannot be parked on the grounds inside the gate. However, I accept the landlord’s advice that the gate was locked, and no key supplied to the tenants. Also, the landlord said that the tenants had previously asked for the gate key so that they could park inside, and she had told them that they were not to park inside. She was unable to advise exactly when this exchange occurred but said it was sometime before she inspected the premises on 5 May 2024. b. After an inspection on 5 May 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant’s housing co-ordinator on 8 May reporting that the front gate lock had been broken or removed to bring a car inside the property. The landlord recorded in her email: “I have discussed concerns with the boys. I can allow one extra car to park outside on the lawn close to the fence, tenants should be with caution due to neighbour’s driveway next. One car in the garage and two cars in the driveway are permitted. Unfortunately, this property cannot accommodate more cars, but I have another property available in mid-July that can accommodate 6-8 cars. I will provide further details if you are interested.” c. On 9 May, the housing co-ordinator confirmed that she would email the occupants about the carparking rules so that it was in writing. d. On 30 May, the housing co-ordinator inspected the premises and reported to the landlord on 6 June that the occupants were still parking inside the property. Photos in the inspection report show a car parked on the brick patio. She sent the occupants another notice advising them not to park inside the gate. She also advised the landlord that she had purchased a lock for the landlord to install so that the gate could be locked again to prevent cars being parked inside the grounds. e. On 2 July, the landlord emailed the housing co-ordinator and confirmed that she had installed the gate lock. She advised that while there she noticed the tenants were still parking their cars on the lawn which had caused significant damage. She also observed a car parked on the brick patio and stated (it seems for the first time): “The patio floor is not designed to support a car’s weight and I have noticed cracks forming.” She asked that the tenants repair the lawn and the cracks in the brick patio. f. On 3 July, the housing coordinator replied apologising and advising that she had given the tenants a final warning and she would ask them to resow the lawn. However, in relation to the cracked patio, she stated: “I believe the patio was cracked before and this is showing on the pre-inspection photos—I can clearly see that next to the lawn there is already crack...” Unfortunately, a copy of this email supplied by the landlord was cut off and the remaining text is not displayed. However, the housing co-ordinator attached the relevant pre-inspection photos. g. There is no evidence of cars being parked on the lawn or the brick patio after the landlord installed the lock on 2 July.
Based on the available evidence, I find that the tenants likely parked their cars inside the gate between 5 May and 2 July 2024 and possibly sometime sooner, but it is not clear when. The landlord did not report any damage to the brick patio until their email of 2 July.
I accept that the pre-tenancy photos of the bricks look worn with moss and weeds growing through the mortar around the bricks and there are cracks in the mortar. Certainly the patio is not in pristine or even near new condition. This was raised immediately by the housing coordinator when the landlord claimed the cracks were caused by the tenant cars parked there.
The landlord was not able to advise how long the brick patio has been in place.
The landlord did not provide any reasonable corroborating evidence that parking a car on the brick patio for a short period of say 2-3 months would likely cause the bulk of the damage complained about including cracks and ground sinking. For, example, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified tradesman about the likely cause. There is also no evidence as to whether the method of construction may have contributed to damage over time. For example it is not clear whether the bricks were laid on a proper base such as gravel or whether they are directly laid on compacted soil. The age of the patio and impact of fair wear and tear and seismic activity is also unknown.
The remedial work for which the landlord seeks compensation is to lay a new concrete pad, which I consider is a vastly superior fix and would result in the landlord obtaining a far better patio than originally provided at the start of the tenancy.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I am not persuaded that the landlord has proved that the damage to the brick patio and ground has been caused by the tenants and is beyond fair wear and tear. Even, if I am wrong, the age of the patio is unknown, but it is highly likely any remedial work should be fully depreciated for fair wear and tear.
For the above reasons, the claim for compensation to replace the brick patio with a concrete pad is dismissed. Exterior wooden patio damage
The housing coordinator advised the landlord on 21 January 2025 after conducting an inspection that the wooden patio at the entrance way was loose and needed to be screwed or hammered into place to prevent further deterioration. She asked the tenants to rectify this. The landlord says that the tenants did not fix the issue. When the landlord inspected the wooden patio with a builder after the tenancy ended, it was recommended that 5 panels including a 20-foot-long border should be replaced due to cracks in the wood. The work was included in an invoice for $1,385.75 which included other repairs (which I have dismissed). However, the patio repair costs were likely the bulk of the costs.
The landlord says the tenant has reneged on their agreement to fix the patio. However, I am satisfied that the tenant only indicated that it would nail down one of the boards and by no means accepted liability for replacing boards.
After comparing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos of the wooden patio, I find that the landlord has not proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy other than by fair wear and tear. The wooden balcony looks worn and aged, and the landlord was unable to say how old. Furthermore, there was no opinion from the builder as to the likely cause of the cracks, but the wood appears to have deteriorated over time.
In summary, I find the wooden patio deteriorated over time due to fair wear and tear. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Interior door lock broken
This appears to be the original door handle and I consider that it became loose and damaged through fair wear and tear. The tenants are not responsible for the replacement costs. The claim is dismissed. Broken garden tap
I am satisfied the tap deteriorated through fair wear and tear. The tenants replaced the tap with a new tap that the landlord says was not installed correctly and had to be re-fitted. However, as the tenants were not responsible for replacing the tap in the first instance, they are not liable for the cost of refitting the new tap. The claim is dismissed. Exterior front gate damage
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the hole in the exterior gate which is on the street side was caused by the tenants and the repair cost claimed by the landlord is dismissed Broken wardrobe rack
The claim is proved, and I have awarded the landlord the replacement costs of $10 for the rack. I have not awarded $40 claimed by the landlord to install the rack. I consider the cost to install would have been minimal and a simple task that a landlord might be expected to attend to between tenancies. Broken kitchen switch
At the end of the tenancy it was discovered that one of the switches in the kitchen was cracked through the middle and the landlord seeks the costs of replacing the switch. The housing coordinator says that the age of the switch is unknown, but it looks old and may’ve cracked through fair wear and tear.
I find that the landlord has not proved that the switch was damaged other than through fair wear and tear. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

The landlord seeks $3,000 for three weeks’ loss of rent. They cite two reasons for this. First, the tenant had not removed all their belongings when the tenancy ended on 28 February 2025, storing items in the garage, storeroom and on the patio for an extra 3 days until 3 March. Secondly, they say that letting the premises was delayed because of the remedial work required. In particular, they say that they could not let the premises until the bath was replaced and it was difficult to find a contractor able to do this quickly. The various repairs and bath replacement took just over 2 weeks from 15 March until 1 April. A new tenancy was able to start on 18 April.
The landlord was covered for loss of rent by their insurers who paid out 16 days rent less the excess of $750. However, the landlords seek a further $3,000 from the tenants because the overall delay between the tenancy ending a new tenancy starting was 7 weeks.
The tenant argues that the items left in the garage, storeroom and on the patio did not prevent the landlord from arranging viewings with prospective tenants as the interior of the house was completely vacant. Also, the housing coordinator had advised the landlord that belongings had been stored there due to difficulty finding a removal company. In any event, they offered to pay an extra 3 days rent which the landlord rejected seeking a larger sum. The tenant also takes issue with the time taken to replace the bath.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where there is damage requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
Given, that I have dismissed some of the damage claimed by the landlord, I am satisfied that compensation of two weeks’ rent is justified in total to cover the time taken to remove and replace the bath, paint the bathroom ceiling and to cover any costs for storing belongings at the premises for a further 3 days. Given that the landlord’s insurer covered 16 days loss of rent, I award the excess applied of $750 which I consider is fair and reasonable.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages for various unlawful acts?

Failing to vacate

[The landlord/s], the tenant did not vacate the premises on 28 February 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I consider the tenant has not breached section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA because the tenants had physically vacated the premises. The failure to remove all their belongings is a separate obligation under section 40(1)(e)(ii) RTA which is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered. Therefore the claim is dismissed. Damage and failure to manage the property
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the damage caused by the tenants and the alleged failure by Stellar to manage the tenancy and to prevent various breaches. However, any failure by a tenant to keep the premises clean and tidy and not to damage is not an unlawful act under the RTA for which exemplary damages can be considered. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms
The landlord claims 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. 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.
During an inspection on 8 May 2024, the landlord discovered that the tenants had removed a smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord advised the tenants and the housing coordinator by email the same day to reinstate the alarm. The housing co-ordinator immediately emailed the tenants asking them to put the alarm back up; not to remove alarms; and reminding them of their responsibility to replace batteries.
When the housing co-ordinator conducted another inspection on 20 August 2024, she discovered the smoke alarm in the hall had not been reinstated and she asked the occupants again to reinstate it. The occupants were unresponsive, and the housing coordinator emailed the landlord on 11 September asking them to check the alarm and put it back. The landlord did so on 12 September. After the tenancy ended on 28 February 2025, the landlord once again discovered that a smoke alarm in the living broom had been removed.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the occupants removed smoke alarms on two occasions despite warnings and notices not to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act, and the tenant is liable for the unlawful act as provided in the tenancy agreement.
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.
I find that the unlawful act was intentional because the tenants failed to reinstate a smoke alarm when first asked and failed to comply with warnings and notices not to tamper with the smoke alarms on a second occasion. Removal of smoke alarms/batteries is a serious breach of the RTA, the effect of which is to put the lives of occupants at risk and puts the property at further risk in the event of an undetected fire. There is considerable public interest in ensuring that tenants comply with fire safety obligations.
I have awarded $2,000 for exemplary damages to recognise the seriousness of the unlawful act and the fact that it occurred more than once.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

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 5225011 — net $631.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: House, garage & storage room	$250.00	Cleaning: House, garage & storage room
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling	$650.00	Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling
Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock	$113.94	Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock
Replace kitchen lightbulb	$13.88	Replace kitchen lightbulb
Replace missing water hose holder	$16.98	Replace missing water hose holder
Replace wardrobe shelf	$10.00	Replace wardrobe shelf
Insurance excess for replacement bath	$750.00	Insurance excess for replacement bath
Insurance excess for loss of rent	$750.00	Insurance excess for loss of rent
Exemplary damages-removing smoke alarm	$2,000.00	removing smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$631.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$631.80

Claims and awards for application 5225011 — net $631.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: House, garage & storage room

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: House, garage & storage room

Rubbish removal

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean off mould & paint bathroom ceiling

Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock

Amount: $113.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace missing gate doorstop & padlock

Replace kitchen lightbulb

Amount: $13.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace kitchen lightbulb

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Exterior wooden patio damage
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Smoke Alarms — Smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Stellar Recruitment LP must pay [The landlord/s] $631.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Kelly representing the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background facts
This is a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 30 January 2023 and ended on 17 February 2024. The parties then renewed the agreement for a fixed term commencing on 17 February 2024 and ending on 22 February 2025. The premises are a four-bedroom wooden cottage dating from the 1930s.
The tenant is a limited partnership and rented the premises to provide accommodation for staff employed as plumbers, electricians, and builders. Staff are mainly Philippine immigrants contracted to work on various construction sites. Ms Kelly advised that the partnership has 45 similar tenancies throughout New Zealand. Ms Kelly is one of the partnership’s housing co-coordinators employed to manage the tenancies and their staff occupying the premises. This includes carrying out regular inspections with their inspection reports shared with the landlord. During this tenancy, Ms Kelly said there was a turnover of approximately 20 staff that occupied the premises over the course of the tenancy with six occupants residing at the premises at any one time, as permitted by the tenancy agreement. Two previous housing co-ordinators largely managed this tenancy.
The terms of the tenancy agreements specifically provide that the tenant, Stellar Recruitment LP, is solely responsible for paying rent and maintenance of the property; accepts full liability for any damages/issues caused by tenants/staff. The agreements also provide that if requested by the landlord, the tenant will share details about staff staying at the property. References in this decision to tenant/s includes both Stellar and their staff who were occupying the premises.
The tenant decided not to renew the fixed term tenancy ending on 22 February 2025. However, the parties agreed to an extension of the tenancy until 28 February 2025 to enable Ms Kelly further time to clear furniture and other belongings from the premises for which she needed to organise a moving company. Due to difficulty organising a moving company, these items remained stored in the garage, storage room and on the patio. The tenant advised the landlord of this but was able to have the items collected on 3 March 2025.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord seeks $460 for cleaning the interior of the premises based on a cleaning quote they obtained. However, they did not use the service that prepared the quote and did the work themselves. They also seek further costs of $80 for their time cleaning the garage/storage room and $70 for disposing of some left-over rubbish.
After carefully considering the photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy produced in evidence, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, the cleaning work required in those areas as shown in the photos was relatively minor and I consider an award of $250 to cover the landlord’s time cleaning is a reasonable award. Gardens and lawns
There is evidence of the tenants parking their cars on the lawn from at least early May 2024 to 2 July 2024 which damaged the lawn. The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy, the lawn was not reinstated to the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. They also say that the tenants did not mow the lawns and did not remove weeds and green waste. They seek costs to resow parts of the lawn and tidy the lawns and gardens.
I have carefully reviewed the pre-tenancy inspection photos supplied by the landlord taken in January 2023 before the tenancy commenced and photos supplied by both the landlord and the tenant at the end of the tenancy. I consider that the lawns and garden were left in substantially the same condition at the end of the tenancy as they were at the start. The pre-tenancy photos clearly show patches of missing or browned-off lawn and areas where the dirt is visible. Similarly the pre-tenancy photos show areas where vines and weeds are showing through the fence near the pebbled path.
In summary, from a comparison of the photos, I consider the tenants left the lawns and gardens in reasonably tidy condition and similar to the condition they were in at the start of the tenancy. The claims for gardening and lawns are therefore dismissed.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: one lightbulb in the kitchen, a water hose holder, a doorstop latch and padlock for an exterior gate. Ms Kelly argued that the hose holder looked rusty in the pre-tenancy photos and that the exterior gate doorstop and padlock likely deteriorated in the weather. However, because those items were missing and not reported to the landlord, the tenant cannot prove that they had deteriorated through fair wear and tear. Therefore, I award the costs of the replacement items. I have not awarded the landlord their costs claimed to install the lightbulb and gate doorstop and padlock of $60. I consider it is reasonable for the landlord to wear this cost on the basis that a landlord is expected to spend some time on cleaning and maintenance in between tenancies as part of operating a rental business. Also the time required to install these items would be minimal.
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.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
Where damage is proved, and an item is replaced I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I deal with each of the claims for damage in turn. In determining whether the tenant is liable for the damage I have reviewed the oral and written evidence of the parties including relevant photos before, during, and after the tenancy ended. Bathroom ceiling mould
Despite multiple directions to the tenants to ventilate and clean the bathroom, mould developed on the ceiling that could not be removed. I find this is careless damage caused by the tenants. The ceiling required repainting. The landlord provided a painting quote, but this was for the bathroom ceiling and walls. I consider that the ceiling is likely half the surface area of the bathroom with a window and some tiles on two other walls. The landlord says it was last painted in 2022 making the paintwork 3 years old at the end of the tenancy. Painted surfaces in a bathroom should last approximately 10 years according to current depreciation guidelines. Therefore, I award the landlord $523.25. This equates to half the quote of $1,300 plus GST, being $747.50, reduced for depreciation by a further 30% (3/10 years). Bath damage
I am satisfied based on photos during the tenancy and photos taken at the end that there was a dent in the bath which allowed water to leak through and other chips and scratches which occurred during the tenancy. I find this is likely careless damage because there are repeated instances of damage. The bath required replacement. The cost to remove the old bath and install a new one was $4,164.15 excluding the cost of the replacement bath supplied by the landlord. The cost was covered by the landlord’s insurance with an excess of $750 deducted which the landlord seeks from the tenant. The age of the bath is unknown but would be expected to last a lifetime according to current depreciation guidelines. Therefore, I consider it is reasonable to award the excess. Exterior red brick patio damage
There is undisputed evidence that the tenants broke the front exterior gate lock in order to park their cars on the lawn and the red brick patio area. I have already dealt with the lawn and found that it was left in in reasonable condition. However, the landlord claims that parking cars on the brick patio resulted in significant damage causing the bricks and mortar to crack and the ground underneath to sink in various places due to the weight of the cars. The landlord says the patio was not designed to support vehicles. She also says that the tenants continued to park on the patio after multiple warnings not to do so. She referred to various photos taken before and after the tenancy which she says show the damage.
The landlord has obtained a quote to remove the bricks, reinstate the ground level underneath and lay a new concrete pad (instead of bricks) costing $7,800. The damage is not covered by insurance because the insurers assessed that it was gradual damage over a long period of time which is not covered.
Ms Kelly disputes the claim saying that: pre-tenancy photos show that the patio was already cracked in places; the age of the patio is unknown, but it is likely quite old; and damage and ground subsidence could have been caused by seismic activity.
I have carefully reviewed the available evidence including emails between the parties at the relevant time and various pre-and post-tenancy photos. I record the following facts as I find them: a. The tenancy agreement does not stipulate that cars cannot be parked on the grounds inside the gate. However, I accept the landlord’s advice that the gate was locked, and no key supplied to the tenants. Also, the landlord said that the tenants had previously asked for the gate key so that they could park inside, and she had told them that they were not to park inside. She was unable to advise exactly when this exchange occurred but said it was sometime before she inspected the premises on 5 May 2024. b. After an inspection on 5 May 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant’s housing co-ordinator on 8 May reporting that the front gate lock had been broken or removed to bring a car inside the property. The landlord recorded in her email: “I have discussed concerns with the boys. I can allow one extra car to park outside on the lawn close to the fence, tenants should be with caution due to neighbour’s driveway next. One car in the garage and two cars in the driveway are permitted. Unfortunately, this property cannot accommodate more cars, but I have another property available in mid-July that can accommodate 6-8 cars. I will provide further details if you are interested.” c. On 9 May, the housing co-ordinator confirmed that she would email the occupants about the carparking rules so that it was in writing. d. On 30 May, the housing co-ordinator inspected the premises and reported to the landlord on 6 June that the occupants were still parking inside the property. Photos in the inspection report show a car parked on the brick patio. She sent the occupants another notice advising them not to park inside the gate. She also advised the landlord that she had purchased a lock for the landlord to install so that the gate could be locked again to prevent cars being parked inside the grounds. e. On 2 July, the landlord emailed the housing co-ordinator and confirmed that she had installed the gate lock. She advised that while there she noticed the tenants were still parking their cars on the lawn which had caused significant damage. She also observed a car parked on the brick patio and stated (it seems for the first time): “The patio floor is not designed to support a car’s weight and I have noticed cracks forming.” She asked that the tenants repair the lawn and the cracks in the brick patio. f. On 3 July, the housing coordinator replied apologising and advising that she had given the tenants a final warning and she would ask them to resow the lawn. However, in relation to the cracked patio, she stated: “I believe the patio was cracked before and this is showing on the pre-inspection photos—I can clearly see that next to the lawn there is already crack...” Unfortunately, a copy of this email supplied by the landlord was cut off and the remaining text is not displayed. However, the housing co-ordinator attached the relevant pre-inspection photos. g. There is no evidence of cars being parked on the lawn or the brick patio after the landlord installed the lock on 2 July.
Based on the available evidence, I find that the tenants likely parked their cars inside the gate between 5 May and 2 July 2024 and possibly sometime sooner, but it is not clear when. The landlord did not report any damage to the brick patio until their email of 2 July.
I accept that the pre-tenancy photos of the bricks look worn with moss and weeds growing through the mortar around the bricks and there are cracks in the mortar. Certainly the patio is not in pristine or even near new condition. This was raised immediately by the housing coordinator when the landlord claimed the cracks were caused by the tenant cars parked there.
The landlord was not able to advise how long the brick patio has been in place.
The landlord did not provide any reasonable corroborating evidence that parking a car on the brick patio for a short period of say 2-3 months would likely cause the bulk of the damage complained about including cracks and ground sinking. For, example, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified tradesman about the likely cause. There is also no evidence as to whether the method of construction may have contributed to damage over time. For example it is not clear whether the bricks were laid on a proper base such as gravel or whether they are directly laid on compacted soil. The age of the patio and impact of fair wear and tear and seismic activity is also unknown.
The remedial work for which the landlord seeks compensation is to lay a new concrete pad, which I consider is a vastly superior fix and would result in the landlord obtaining a far better patio than originally provided at the start of the tenancy.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I am not persuaded that the landlord has proved that the damage to the brick patio and ground has been caused by the tenants and is beyond fair wear and tear. Even, if I am wrong, the age of the patio is unknown, but it is highly likely any remedial work should be fully depreciated for fair wear and tear.
For the above reasons, the claim for compensation to replace the brick patio with a concrete pad is dismissed. Exterior wooden patio damage
The housing coordinator advised the landlord on 21 January 2025 after conducting an inspection that the wooden patio at the entrance way was loose and needed to be screwed or hammered into place to prevent further deterioration. She asked the tenants to rectify this. The landlord says that the tenants did not fix the issue. When the landlord inspected the wooden patio with a builder after the tenancy ended, it was recommended that 5 panels including a 20-foot-long border should be replaced due to cracks in the wood. The work was included in an invoice for $1,385.75 which included other repairs (which I have dismissed). However, the patio repair costs were likely the bulk of the costs.
The landlord says the tenant has reneged on their agreement to fix the patio. However, I am satisfied that the tenant only indicated that it would nail down one of the boards and by no means accepted liability for replacing boards.
After comparing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos of the wooden patio, I find that the landlord has not proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy other than by fair wear and tear. The wooden balcony looks worn and aged, and the landlord was unable to say how old. Furthermore, there was no opinion from the builder as to the likely cause of the cracks, but the wood appears to have deteriorated over time.
In summary, I find the wooden patio deteriorated over time due to fair wear and tear. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Interior door lock broken
This appears to be the original door handle and I consider that it became loose and damaged through fair wear and tear. The tenants are not responsible for the replacement costs. The claim is dismissed. Broken garden tap
I am satisfied the tap deteriorated through fair wear and tear. The tenants replaced the tap with a new tap that the landlord says was not installed correctly and had to be re-fitted. However, as the tenants were not responsible for replacing the tap in the first instance, they are not liable for the cost of refitting the new tap. The claim is dismissed. Exterior front gate damage
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the hole in the exterior gate which is on the street side was caused by the tenants and the repair cost claimed by the landlord is dismissed Broken wardrobe rack
The claim is proved, and I have awarded the landlord the replacement costs of $10 for the rack. I have not awarded $40 claimed by the landlord to install the rack. I consider the cost to install would have been minimal and a simple task that a landlord might be expected to attend to between tenancies. Broken kitchen switch
At the end of the tenancy it was discovered that one of the switches in the kitchen was cracked through the middle and the landlord seeks the costs of replacing the switch. The housing coordinator says that the age of the switch is unknown, but it looks old and may’ve cracked through fair wear and tear.
I find that the landlord has not proved that the switch was damaged other than through fair wear and tear. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

The landlord seeks $3,000 for three weeks’ loss of rent. They cite two reasons for this. First, the tenant had not removed all their belongings when the tenancy ended on 28 February 2025, storing items in the garage, storeroom and on the patio for an extra 3 days until 3 March. Secondly, they say that letting the premises was delayed because of the remedial work required. In particular, they say that they could not let the premises until the bath was replaced and it was difficult to find a contractor able to do this quickly. The various repairs and bath replacement took just over 2 weeks from 15 March until 1 April. A new tenancy was able to start on 18 April.
The landlord was covered for loss of rent by their insurers who paid out 16 days rent less the excess of $750. However, the landlords seek a further $3,000 from the tenants because the overall delay between the tenancy ending a new tenancy starting was 7 weeks.
The tenant argues that the items left in the garage, storeroom and on the patio did not prevent the landlord from arranging viewings with prospective tenants as the interior of the house was completely vacant. Also, the housing coordinator had advised the landlord that belongings had been stored there due to difficulty finding a removal company. In any event, they offered to pay an extra 3 days rent which the landlord rejected seeking a larger sum. The tenant also takes issue with the time taken to replace the bath.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where there is damage requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
Given, that I have dismissed some of the damage claimed by the landlord, I am satisfied that compensation of two weeks’ rent is justified in total to cover the time taken to remove and replace the bath, paint the bathroom ceiling and to cover any costs for storing belongings at the premises for a further 3 days. Given that the landlord’s insurer covered 16 days loss of rent, I award the excess applied of $750 which I consider is fair and reasonable.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages for various unlawful acts?

Failing to vacate

[The landlord/s], the tenant did not vacate the premises on 28 February 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I consider the tenant has not breached section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA because the tenants had physically vacated the premises. The failure to remove all their belongings is a separate obligation under section 40(1)(e)(ii) RTA which is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered. Therefore the claim is dismissed. Damage and failure to manage the property
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the damage caused by the tenants and the alleged failure by Stellar to manage the tenancy and to prevent various breaches. However, any failure by a tenant to keep the premises clean and tidy and not to damage is not an unlawful act under the RTA for which exemplary damages can be considered. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms
The landlord claims 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. 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.
During an inspection on 8 May 2024, the landlord discovered that the tenants had removed a smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord advised the tenants and the housing coordinator by email the same day to reinstate the alarm. The housing co-ordinator immediately emailed the tenants asking them to put the alarm back up; not to remove alarms; and reminding them of their responsibility to replace batteries.
When the housing co-ordinator conducted another inspection on 20 August 2024, she discovered the smoke alarm in the hall had not been reinstated and she asked the occupants again to reinstate it. The occupants were unresponsive, and the housing coordinator emailed the landlord on 11 September asking them to check the alarm and put it back. The landlord did so on 12 September. After the tenancy ended on 28 February 2025, the landlord once again discovered that a smoke alarm in the living broom had been removed.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the occupants removed smoke alarms on two occasions despite warnings and notices not to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act, and the tenant is liable for the unlawful act as provided in the tenancy agreement.
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.
I find that the unlawful act was intentional because the tenants failed to reinstate a smoke alarm when first asked and failed to comply with warnings and notices not to tamper with the smoke alarms on a second occasion. Removal of smoke alarms/batteries is a serious breach of the RTA, the effect of which is to put the lives of occupants at risk and puts the property at further risk in the event of an undetected fire. There is considerable public interest in ensuring that tenants comply with fire safety obligations.
I have awarded $2,000 for exemplary damages to recognise the seriousness of the unlawful act and the fact that it occurred more than once.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225011 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225011 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages for various unlawful acts?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages for various unlawful acts?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions