What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272530 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 5272530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272530 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 5272530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

92 Hargest Crescent, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272530 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Amanda Law is to immediately pay to [The tenant/s] the filing fee of $27.00.
The application by Amanda Law for compensation of $1,800.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Following the end of their tenancy the tenant sought a refund of their $1,800.00 bond.
In addition, the tenant suggested the landlord had failed to comply with healthy homes standards because of the lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
On the other hand, the landlord claimed the bond as part compensation for having to replace the lounge carpet due to staining by a dog.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 17/5/2024 to 15/5/2025 at $595.00 rent per week.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.
Although both parties gave evidence about the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy the landlord did not wish to pursue any claim for cleaning, and I have therefore not needed to make any determination on this matter.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,800.00 towards replacement of the lounge carpet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a photograph of the lounge carpet taken on 17/5/2024, photographs from the carpet cleaner taken on 19/5/2025, a report from the carpet cleaner and a quote of $4,407.00 for new carpet.
The landlord submitted that the carpet was three years old at the start of the tenancy and did have an existing stain from a pot plant.
The excess for the landlord’s insurance was $2,150.00.
In response, the tenant did not believe their dog had soiled the carpet but did agree there were two minor stains which they felt were wear and tear, taking into account the colour of the carpet.
The tenants provided photographs of the carpet taken on 15/5/2025 when they moved out.
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.
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.
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claim the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that the damage to the carpet is more likely than not to have been caused during the tenancy and was not due to fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
If the landlord fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
I find the landlord has failed to satisfy me to the necessary standard that damage was caused during the tenancy to the lounge carpet.
Rather I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the stains were wear and tear, which they had attempted to clean.
In addition, I have considered the fact that the landlord lived in the premises prior to the tenancy commencing and also had a dog.
The claim by the landlord for compensation for replacement of the lounge carpet fails.

Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), in relation to the ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
As the tenancy began on 17/5/2024 the obligation is that the premises should have complied within 120 days of the commencement date, which would have been 14/9/2024.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide an extractor fan in the bathroom.
The landlord relied on verbal advice from an electrician that venting to an external bathroom wall would be ineffective, as would going into the ceiling and over the kitchen and dining room before venting through an outside wall.
The landlord agreed she decided not to install an extractor fan and acknowledged this in the Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement.
However, the landlord did not provide any persuasive evidence that an exemption applied to installation of an extractor fan.
I find Amanda Law committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. The District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
Based on her own admission I find the landlord intentionally failed to fully comply with Healthy Homes Standards by not installing an extractor fan in the bathroom.
Further, after her discussion with the electrician, the landlord had the opportunity to obtain specialist advice about whether the premises came within the exemption set out in the regulations.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Considering the factors set out in section 109(3) and all the circumstances, in this instance I consider it would not be just and equitable to award exemplary damages.
The landlord submitted that these were the only tenant she rented the premises to, she no longer rents out the premises, and has moved back into the property.
The renting of premises is a business and landlords in particular need to be fully aware of their rights and obligations.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in the proceedings.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Amanda Law is to immediately pay to [The tenant/s] the filing fee of $27.00.
The application by Amanda Law for compensation of $1,800.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Following the end of their tenancy the tenant sought a refund of their $1,800.00 bond.
In addition, the tenant suggested the landlord had failed to comply with healthy homes standards because of the lack of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
On the other hand, the landlord claimed the bond as part compensation for having to replace the lounge carpet due to staining by a dog.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 17/5/2024 to 15/5/2025 at $595.00 rent per week.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA.
Although both parties gave evidence about the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy the landlord did not wish to pursue any claim for cleaning, and I have therefore not needed to make any determination on this matter.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,800.00 towards replacement of the lounge carpet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a photograph of the lounge carpet taken on 17/5/2024, photographs from the carpet cleaner taken on 19/5/2025, a report from the carpet cleaner and a quote of $4,407.00 for new carpet.
The landlord submitted that the carpet was three years old at the start of the tenancy and did have an existing stain from a pot plant.
The excess for the landlord’s insurance was $2,150.00.
In response, the tenant did not believe their dog had soiled the carpet but did agree there were two minor stains which they felt were wear and tear, taking into account the colour of the carpet.
The tenants provided photographs of the carpet taken on 15/5/2025 when they moved out.
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.
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.
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claim the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that the damage to the carpet is more likely than not to have been caused during the tenancy and was not due to fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
If the landlord fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
I find the landlord has failed to satisfy me to the necessary standard that damage was caused during the tenancy to the lounge carpet.
Rather I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the stains were wear and tear, which they had attempted to clean.
In addition, I have considered the fact that the landlord lived in the premises prior to the tenancy commencing and also had a dog.
The claim by the landlord for compensation for replacement of the lounge carpet fails.

Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), in relation to the ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
As the tenancy began on 17/5/2024 the obligation is that the premises should have complied within 120 days of the commencement date, which would have been 14/9/2024.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide an extractor fan in the bathroom.
The landlord relied on verbal advice from an electrician that venting to an external bathroom wall would be ineffective, as would going into the ceiling and over the kitchen and dining room before venting through an outside wall.
The landlord agreed she decided not to install an extractor fan and acknowledged this in the Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement.
However, the landlord did not provide any persuasive evidence that an exemption applied to installation of an extractor fan.
I find Amanda Law committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. The District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
Based on her own admission I find the landlord intentionally failed to fully comply with Healthy Homes Standards by not installing an extractor fan in the bathroom.
Further, after her discussion with the electrician, the landlord had the opportunity to obtain specialist advice about whether the premises came within the exemption set out in the regulations.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
Considering the factors set out in section 109(3) and all the circumstances, in this instance I consider it would not be just and equitable to award exemplary damages.
The landlord submitted that these were the only tenant she rented the premises to, she no longer rents out the premises, and has moved back into the property.
The renting of premises is a business and landlords in particular need to be fully aware of their rights and obligations.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in the proceedings.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272530 — Smoke alarms at 92 Hargest Crescent, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272530 — Smoke alarms at 92 Hargest Crescent, Saint Clair, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Claims & awards

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?

Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

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?

Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions