What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239491 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 5239491?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $410.00 awarded to landlord; Nail Holes: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $116.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239491 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 5239491?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $410.00 awarded to landlord; Nail Holes: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $116.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11923955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Chelwood Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5239491 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239491 — net $5,123.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$800.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$186.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,244.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: nail holes	$750.00	Repairs: nail holes
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$410.00	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Replace smoke alarms	$116.00	Replace smoke alarms
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$620.00	Cleaning
Net award	$5,123.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,123.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them. The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
Lilly Fuga and Elisara Fuga must pay [the landlord] $5,123.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$800.00 Lock/key replacement$186.00 Rubbish removal$1,244.00 Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Lawns and Garden work$120.00 Repairs: nail holes$750.00 Repairs: kitchen vinyl$410.00 Replace smoke alarms$116.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Cleaning$620.00 Total award$5,123.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,123.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A smoke alarm was missing at the end of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the following damage caused during the tenancy: a. The tenant had put numerous nails in the walls of the lounge, hallway and main bedroom. The damage was intentional. b. The vinyl in the kitchen had been torn in three places. This damage was careless.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of tenant’s goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has tried to contact the tenant on numerous occasions, but the tenant has not responded.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages: smoke alarm removal
[The landlord/s] 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.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had removed one of the smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
Essentially the factors in section 109(3) RTA require a consideration of the gravity of the unlawful act: that is, aggravating and mitigating factors. When considering the factors, it should be kept in mind that the object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter, not to compensate the victim of the unlawful act. If the effect of the unlawful act has been particularly severe on the applicant then this is likely to be an aggravating factor and, if it has had little or no effect, it will be a mitigating factor.
The removal of the smoke alarm was intentional. It had been removed from the ceiling and removed from the property. It is reasonable to infer that the tenant removed the smoke alarm because it interfered with smoking inside.
The impact on the landlord was minimal because there was no fire. The landlord had to replace the smoke alarm for which the landlord has been compensated.
It is in the public interest that tenants be deterred from removing smoke alarms. Their removal poses a risk to safety of the tenants and may impact on the landlord’s insurance cover in the event of a fire. Landlords have a statutory obligation to install smoke alarms and tenants have a statutory obligation not to remove them.
It is therefore just that the tenant pays the landlord $500.00 in exemplary damages for the removal of the smoke alarm.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239491 — net $5,123.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$800.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$186.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,244.00	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: nail holes	$750.00	Repairs: nail holes
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$410.00	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Replace smoke alarms	$116.00	Replace smoke alarms
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$620.00	Cleaning
Net award	$5,123.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,123.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them. The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
Lilly Fuga and Elisara Fuga must pay [the landlord] $5,123.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$800.00 Lock/key replacement$186.00 Rubbish removal$1,244.00 Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Lawns and Garden work$120.00 Repairs: nail holes$750.00 Repairs: kitchen vinyl$410.00 Replace smoke alarms$116.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Cleaning$620.00 Total award$5,123.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,123.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A smoke alarm was missing at the end of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the following damage caused during the tenancy: a. The tenant had put numerous nails in the walls of the lounge, hallway and main bedroom. The damage was intentional. b. The vinyl in the kitchen had been torn in three places. This damage was careless.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of tenant’s goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has tried to contact the tenant on numerous occasions, but the tenant has not responded.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages: smoke alarm removal
[The landlord/s] 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.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had removed one of the smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
Essentially the factors in section 109(3) RTA require a consideration of the gravity of the unlawful act: that is, aggravating and mitigating factors. When considering the factors, it should be kept in mind that the object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter, not to compensate the victim of the unlawful act. If the effect of the unlawful act has been particularly severe on the applicant then this is likely to be an aggravating factor and, if it has had little or no effect, it will be a mitigating factor.
The removal of the smoke alarm was intentional. It had been removed from the ceiling and removed from the property. It is reasonable to infer that the tenant removed the smoke alarm because it interfered with smoking inside.
The impact on the landlord was minimal because there was no fire. The landlord had to replace the smoke alarm for which the landlord has been compensated.
It is in the public interest that tenants be deterred from removing smoke alarms. Their removal poses a risk to safety of the tenants and may impact on the landlord’s insurance cover in the event of a fire. Landlords have a statutory obligation to install smoke alarms and tenants have a statutory obligation not to remove them.
It is therefore just that the tenant pays the landlord $500.00 in exemplary damages for the removal of the smoke alarm.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239491 — Property damage at 20 Chelwood Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239491 — Property damage at 20 Chelwood Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions