What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300099 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 5300099?

Smoke Alarms: $18,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300099?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300099?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12132092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300099 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 5300099?

Smoke Alarms: $18,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300099?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300099?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12132092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300099 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300099. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ndlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn. 4. The application by the tenant for compe	$18,200.00		ndlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn. 4. The application by the tenant for compe

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
By agreement the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Louise Murphy at [Tenancy address suppressed] ends and possession reverts to the landlord at noon on Monday 21 July 2025
The application by the landlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn.
The application by the tenant for compensation of $18,200.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 26/1/2026 and compensation of $18,200.00 for failure of the landlord’s obligations during the three and a half year tenancy.
The landlord cross applied for exemplary damages for the tenant removing smoke alarms.
The tenancy was for a fixed term and began on 29/12/2021.
After several renewals the tenancy was due to end on 26/1/2026.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

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.
Prior to the hearing the parties agreed that the tenancy would end early on 21/7/2025.
An order has been made to reflect the agreement of the parties.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

[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.
There is no dispute that the tenant twice removed smoke alarms.
However, because the landlord has withdrawn the claim for exemplary damages there is no need for the Tribunal to determine whether the removal was justified.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Louise Murphy claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant suggested that there were many issues with the premises, including but not limited to a hole in a bedroom window, one window was cracked during the tenancy, mould grew on windowsills and the bathroom ceiling, the paint in one bathroom was peeling, gutters overflowed due to vegetation growth, the door of the wood burner didn’t fit properly, and a baffle had to be replaced.
In addition, the tenant was unhappy because she felt the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant wanted compensation for “duress”, her high electricity costs for heating and the improvements she made to the property, such as water blasting the deck and pavements.
The tenant firmly believed that whatever work was undertaken by the landlord was due solely to the fact that she kept asking for repairs.
In support of her claim the tenant provided email correspondence between 13/12/2024 and 22/6/2025.
On the other hand, the landlord disagreed that the premises were not maintained during the tenancy and submitted that when issues were brought up by the tenant these were attended to.
In support of their position the landlord provided an initial property inspection report with photographs dated 22/12/2021, invoices of work undertaken before and during the tenancy, including annual servicing of the wood burner and a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance report dated 16/12/2020.
Although the landlord suggested the premises were cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy, including the oven and carpets, they paid the tenant compensation of $600.00 for the cleaning she did.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Standard of proof
As the parties have reached an agreement on termination and the landlord has withdrawn the exemplary damages claim, the only matter I need to determine is the tenant’s claim for compensation.
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that her claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, such as the state of the premises the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
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.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claims. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
I consider the tenant has failed to provide any persuasive evidence.
While it is possible that the premises were not as clean as the tenant would have wished at the beginning of the tenancy, the evidence of the landlord confirms that the premises were cleaned prior to the tenancy commencing.
Moreover, the landlord compensated the tenant for cleaning work in what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill.
Nor am I persuaded that maintenance was only undertaken at the insistence of the tenant. The evidence of the annual servicing of the wood burner and smoke alarms supports this was work regularly undertaken.
In addition, the work orders and invoices for spouting clearing, bathroom sink blockage, bird netting, dishwasher replacement, window and sliding door repairs, support regular attention to maintenance issues.
Under section 40(1)(d) a tenant has an obligation to notify a landlord, as soon as possible, of any damage or need for repairs.
Unfortunately, with an older property such as this, a two storey wooden villa, maintenance issues are likely to occur on a regular basis.
The evidence provided by the tenant is simply not enough to prove that the landlord ignored their responsibilities.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The tenant’s claim for compensation of $18,200.00 fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord withdrew their claim at the hearing and the tenant was unsuccessful.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in defending the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300099. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ndlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn. 4. The application by the tenant for compe	$18,200.00		ndlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn. 4. The application by the tenant for compe

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
By agreement the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Louise Murphy at [Tenancy address suppressed] ends and possession reverts to the landlord at noon on Monday 21 July 2025
The application by the landlord for exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms is withdrawn.
The application by the tenant for compensation of $18,200.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 26/1/2026 and compensation of $18,200.00 for failure of the landlord’s obligations during the three and a half year tenancy.
The landlord cross applied for exemplary damages for the tenant removing smoke alarms.
The tenancy was for a fixed term and began on 29/12/2021.
After several renewals the tenancy was due to end on 26/1/2026.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

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.
Prior to the hearing the parties agreed that the tenancy would end early on 21/7/2025.
An order has been made to reflect the agreement of the parties.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

[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.
There is no dispute that the tenant twice removed smoke alarms.
However, because the landlord has withdrawn the claim for exemplary damages there is no need for the Tribunal to determine whether the removal was justified.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Louise Murphy claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant suggested that there were many issues with the premises, including but not limited to a hole in a bedroom window, one window was cracked during the tenancy, mould grew on windowsills and the bathroom ceiling, the paint in one bathroom was peeling, gutters overflowed due to vegetation growth, the door of the wood burner didn’t fit properly, and a baffle had to be replaced.
In addition, the tenant was unhappy because she felt the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant wanted compensation for “duress”, her high electricity costs for heating and the improvements she made to the property, such as water blasting the deck and pavements.
The tenant firmly believed that whatever work was undertaken by the landlord was due solely to the fact that she kept asking for repairs.
In support of her claim the tenant provided email correspondence between 13/12/2024 and 22/6/2025.
On the other hand, the landlord disagreed that the premises were not maintained during the tenancy and submitted that when issues were brought up by the tenant these were attended to.
In support of their position the landlord provided an initial property inspection report with photographs dated 22/12/2021, invoices of work undertaken before and during the tenancy, including annual servicing of the wood burner and a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance report dated 16/12/2020.
Although the landlord suggested the premises were cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy, including the oven and carpets, they paid the tenant compensation of $600.00 for the cleaning she did.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Standard of proof
As the parties have reached an agreement on termination and the landlord has withdrawn the exemplary damages claim, the only matter I need to determine is the tenant’s claim for compensation.
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that her claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, such as the state of the premises the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
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.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claims. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
I consider the tenant has failed to provide any persuasive evidence.
While it is possible that the premises were not as clean as the tenant would have wished at the beginning of the tenancy, the evidence of the landlord confirms that the premises were cleaned prior to the tenancy commencing.
Moreover, the landlord compensated the tenant for cleaning work in what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill.
Nor am I persuaded that maintenance was only undertaken at the insistence of the tenant. The evidence of the annual servicing of the wood burner and smoke alarms supports this was work regularly undertaken.
In addition, the work orders and invoices for spouting clearing, bathroom sink blockage, bird netting, dishwasher replacement, window and sliding door repairs, support regular attention to maintenance issues.
Under section 40(1)(d) a tenant has an obligation to notify a landlord, as soon as possible, of any damage or need for repairs.
Unfortunately, with an older property such as this, a two storey wooden villa, maintenance issues are likely to occur on a regular basis.
The evidence provided by the tenant is simply not enough to prove that the landlord ignored their responsibilities.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The tenant’s claim for compensation of $18,200.00 fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord withdrew their claim at the hearing and the tenant was unsuccessful.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were successful in defending the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300099 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300099 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions