What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279585 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 5279585?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279585?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12786655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279585 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 5279585?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279585?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279585?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12786655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279585 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Mandarin interpreter was present to assist the Tenants.

The Tenant applied for a refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

The tenancy ran from 1 June 2024 to 1 June 2025.

For Tribunal hearings, the onus is on the Applicant to prove their case. This means it is the Tenants job to convince the Tribunal that their case is correct and they should provide all the evidence they have to support that. Compensation- light bulbs

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.

The Tenants claimed $50.00 for the cost of replacing living room lightbulbs which they said were damaged due to an electrical fault in the electrical box. The Tenants did not cause the lightbulbs to become damaged. This occurred on 19 April 2025 and the Tenants recall witnessing sparks coming from the box. They produced receipts to substantiate the costs of the replacement bulbs.

The Landlord submitted the light bulbs were not affected by the events on the 19 April 2025. They recall there was an electrical storm and the Tenants did not notify them of the electrical inbox issues until the next evening. There had never been any issues with the box in the past 11 years.

Having considered the evidence, I find the Tenants have not established that an electrical fault caused the lightbulbs to fail. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the electrical box was defective at the relevant time or that any such defect caused the damage to the bulbs. Independent expert evidence from a qualified electrician confirming a causal link would have been persuasive however this was not provided.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenants seek exemplary damages on the grounds that the Landlord discriminated against them.

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993. See ss 12(1) and 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act sets out the prohibited grounds of discrimination, including sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

A breach of this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, up to a maximum of $6,500. See s 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The Tenants claimed that on or about 3 June 2025 they attended the property and became involved in a verbal altercation with the Landlord. They say the Landlord acted in a discriminatory manner by saying “Fuck you” and “Bullshit.” They also said the Landlord told them to speak English, and they felt compelled to do so because they were not aware of their rights. They said they were upset by the incident, stayed home for three days as a result, and reported the matter to Police.

The Landlord submitted that the incident occurred after the tenancy had ended and is therefore irrelevant. They denied making any racially motivated remarks but acknowledged that they did swear at the Tenants in frustration. They said they asked the Tenants to speak English only because one of the Tenants was yelling at the Landlord in Mandarin and they wished to understand what was being said. They noted that had they been discriminatory, they would not have rented the property to the Tenants in the first place.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord did not engage in discriminatory conduct. The use of offensive language, while inappropriate, does not in itself amount to discrimination. Similarly, requesting that someone speak English in order to understand the conversation does not constitute racist behaviour. The incident also occurred after the tenancy had ended, meaning it does not fall within the scope of conduct regulated by the RTA.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The Tenants also sought emotional compensation of $1,000 arising from the same incident on 3 June 2025. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 16—namely that the Landlord’s conduct was not discriminatory—the claim cannot succeed. In addition, the Tenants provided no medical or other corroborative evidence of harm.

The claim is dismissed.

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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. In this case, the Landlord has been successful, so name suppression is granted. As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Mandarin interpreter was present to assist the Tenants.

The Tenant applied for a refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

The tenancy ran from 1 June 2024 to 1 June 2025.

The claim is dismissed.

The Tenants seek exemplary damages on the grounds that the Landlord discriminated against them.

A breach of this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, up to a maximum of $6,500. See s 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279585 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279585 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions