Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5266059 — Property damage at Unit/Flat E, 40 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt
Decided 18 Jun 2025 · Published 18 Jun 2025 · Application 5266059
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Smoke alarms
Order
- Brittani Barrow must pay Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Ram Tamilan $2,580.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Mr Gibbs attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. There was no appearance for the tenant.
- The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which was 22 April 2025.
- Since the application was filed, the tenant has signed a bond release form for the amount of the rent arrears ($1,713.00), leaving a balance of $447.
- The claims for compensation relate to cleaning and repairs at the end of the tenancy, and the claim for exemplary damages is for interference with the smoke alarms.
- The onus of proof is on the landlord, who must prove the claims to the civil standard of proof which is on the balance of probabilities.
- The landlord provided copies of three exit inspection reports: a. 23 April 2025, being the day after the tenancy ended; b. 28 April 2025, after rubbish disposal; c. 13 May 2025 after cleaning and carpet cleaning.
- The landlord also provided copies of relevant invoices and provided explanations.
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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The photos show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It appears that no attempt had been made to clean the premises at all, including the oven. The invoice for $750 is reasonable.
- In addition, the carpets required cleaning. The photos show marks and stains. Mr Gibbs advised that there was kitty litter throughout the house and pressed into the carpet. It was reasonable that the carpets were cleaned. The invoice for $200 is reasonable.
- In addition, the owner claimed 4 hours labour at minimum wage for time spent removing the curtains to clean cat hair out and put the curtains back up.
- The photos show that there was rubbish and small abandoned items in the house. The landlord said these were removed and taken to the tip, and provided a receipt for the tip fee of $42.60. Four hours labour at minimum wage was claimed, coming to $94.00.
- There was a large amount of rubbish and abandoned items in the shed. The landlord went through everything to make sure that there were no photos or precious items in there. A further four hours ($94.00) is claimed for that. In addition, the landlord provided an invoice from contractor which included $190 plus GST for taking everything to the dump.
- 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.
- Based on the photographs and Mr Gibbs’ explanations, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Scratched window sills in lounge and bedrooms b. Missing melamine shelf in kitchen cupboard c. Holes in bathroom door, lounge and bedroom walls d. Scratches under window sills e. Broken door handle.
- These repairs were all covered in an itemised invoice from Matlyn Maintenance and totalled $909.50. The painting of the scratched walls was for the area under the window sill only.
- In addition, the landlord claimed $91.41 to replace the remote control for the heat pump. It had a smashed screen and was no longer working.
- A tap was taped up with Sellotape at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted an invoice for $176.27 for repair of the tap.
- The photos showed an area of carpet in a door way that had been badly scratched and torn. Rather than replace the entire carpet, this has been patched with carpet from inside the wardrobe and so the sum of $230 is sought for carpet repairs.
- I am satisfied the repairs/replacments were all warranted after the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Smoke alarms
- Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Ram Tamilan 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.
- Mr Gibbs said that at the end of the tenancy two smoke alarms were found in a drawer with the broken remote control. I find that by doing so, the tenant has interfered with a means of escape from fire. Smoke alarms are compulsory for the protection of life and property. 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.
- It is unknown why the smoke alarms were removed or how long they had been down for. Mr Gibbs said that they were always in the correct place when he did his inspections and he checked them. It is possible that the smoke alarms were taken down in between inspections, but there is no evidence to establish that. All that can be proved is that they were not in situ at the end of the tenancy.
- In summary, the circumstances and duration of the removal are unknown.
- However, it is in the public interest that tenants are reminded that they must not remove smoke alarms. If there is any type of defect with the alarm, they must notify the landlord. In the circumstances, I have decided that exemplary damages of $100 should be ordered.
- Because Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Ram Tamilan has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.