What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273043 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 5273043?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273043?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273043 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 5273043?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273043?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273043 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for a reduction in their fixed term tenancy to 9 May 2025, reimbursement of monies paid to fix the cook top, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 31 July 2025.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. One of the tenants was transferred to Australia for work and therefore the tenants sought to end the tenancy earlier than 31 July 2025.
The tenants say they would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced as they are having to find and fund long term rental accommodation in Melbourne and cannot afford to pay double rent payments.
The landlord says the owners would also suffer hardship if the term is reduced.
The tenants proved they gave preliminary notice of their intention to end the lease early on 20 March 2025, and gave notice on 27 March 2025 that their last day of tenancy would be 9 May 2025. They state that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to find a suitable new tenant to move in on 10 May 2025 because it did not advertise the property for a month and then only offered minimal viewing times, relied on the tenants’ keys to access the property for viewings and did not allow the tenants to try to find suitable tenants to reassign the remainder of the lease too. For these reasons they say that they should not be held liable for the rent beyond 9 May 2025.
The landlord says the market is slow and that they have found a new tenant as soon as practicable in this slow market and the parties confirmed new tenants moved into the premise on 16 May 2025.
The landlord wants to hold the tenants to their signed break lease agreement to pay rent until the new tenant moves in and an email from the female tenants that expressly agrees to be liable for the rent to 15 May 2025 and confirms that the tenants will make payment for that rent, which they did.
The tenants say they were forced to agree to pay rent to 15 May 2025 under duress, and they want reimbursement of the rent they paid from 10 to 15 May 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenants have expressly agreed to pay rent to 15 May 2025 in the 9 May 2025 email and in the break lease agreement they signed. I find the tenants should be estopped from resiling from these clear and express agreements to be bound by the terms contained within both agreements to pay rent to 15 May 2025, as it would be inequitable for them to do so. I find the tenancy ended on 15 May 2025 and rent was owing to that date.
The tenants claims for reimbursement of rent paid for the period 10 to 15 May 2025 is dismissed for insufficient evidence to prove that claim on the balance of probabilities and the evidence provided by the landlord that disproves the claim.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has expressly waived its right to charge the break lease fee provided for in the tenancy agreement, so no compensation is ordered for the costs associated with the lease being ended early by the tenants.

Are the tenants 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 tenants have paid $500.00 plus GST to the landlord for repairs to the cook top. They are seeking reimbursement of that money paid as they say they are not liable for the cost of the repair because the damage was accidental and should be deemed fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced a text message from the female tenant dated 9 May 2025 accepting responsibility for the damage and agreeing to pay the quoted $500 plus GST.
The tenants have again expressly agreed to pay for a cost that they now seek to resile from as they say they were placed under duress to agree to pay for this repair. The tenants have clearly and expressly agreed to pay this repair cost, have paid the money to the landlord and it would be inequitable and unconscionable to allow them to resile from that agreement.
In the alternative, the male tenant explained how he had been drying the dishes and had knocked the side of the cook top with a heavy pan, causing a crack in the glass. He says this was an accident and he should not have had to pay for the damage as there was no barrier between the bench and the cook top to stop this type of damage occurring. I disagree, the type of incident described by the male tenant was of a careless act that resulted in the damage. It is reasonably foreseeable that if a tenant does not take care when handling heavy pots and pans around a cooktop and knocks the glass or drops them on the glass, it is highly likely to cause a crack to the cook top.
.For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenants claims for compensation under this head of claim as they have not proven the damage was not caused by their tenants’ careless acts or omissions and they expressly agreed in writing to pay $500.00 plus GST in compensation for the damage.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Did the tenants 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs and leave all the chattels provided by the landlord in the premise at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submits the tenants did not leave the dehumidifier that was supplied to the tenants by the owner of the premise and is seeking $150.00 compensation for replacing the dehumidifier with a second hand one from trade me.
The landlord had taken an entry inspection photograph of the dehumidifier and photographs of it inside the house in September 2024, during a property inspection. The landlord says it was not there at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants say the dehumidifier never worked and they never used it, it may have been disposed of when the prior property manager gave them permission to dispose of anything that was not working. Further, they say the dehumidifier was not listed in the tenancy agreement as a chattel and they have never signed a checklist with the dehumidifier listed.
The landlord accepts the dehumidifier is not listed as a chattel as the landlord did not want to have to replace the unit if it stopped working.
The landlord cannot have it both ways. Fail to list the chattel so as not to be held responsible for replacing it if it stops working but holding the tenants liable when it doesn’t work, and they dispose of it when given permission to do so by the prior property manager.
The landlord was unable to produce sufficient evidence to meet the evidential burden of proof that the tenants are liable for the replacement cost of $15.00 for the dehumidifier.
Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation under this head of claim.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, the parties’ applications for reimbursement of their filing fees are dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings. However, I use my discretion to order name suppression as I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273043 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273043 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions