What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312199 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 5312199?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 20…: $178.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install Freestanding Ove…: $751.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312199?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312199 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 5312199?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 20…: $178.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install Freestanding Ove…: $751.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312199?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312199 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312199 — net $5,883.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 2022	$178.74	Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 2022
Lock/key replacement	$125.80	Lock/key replacement
Replace and install freestanding oven	$751.30	Replace and install freestanding oven
Insurance excess	$1,300.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages: unlawful interference with smoke alarms	$3,000.00	unlawful interference with smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: lock change	$500.00	lock change
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,883.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,883.84

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312199 — net $5,883.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 2022	$178.74	Power - 5 February 2022 - 4 March 2022
Lock/key replacement	$125.80	Lock/key replacement
Replace and install freestanding oven	$751.30	Replace and install freestanding oven
Insurance excess	$1,300.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages: unlawful interference with smoke alarms	$3,000.00	unlawful interference with smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: lock change	$500.00	lock change
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,883.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,883.84

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Christina Marie Durham must pay [The landlord/s] $5,883.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 24 July 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking: a. Reimbursement for power - $178.74 b. Compensation for: i. Compensation for lock change - $125.80 ii. Replacement cost of missing bathroom heater - $332.00 iii. Compensation for freestanding oven and rangehood - $1,149.00 iv. Compensation for insurance excess - $1,300.00 v. Compensation for methamphetamine testing costs - $2,172.35 c. Exemplary damages for: i. Interference with a means of fire escape. ii. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose. iii. Failing to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in circumstances where the landlord is allowed to enter. iv. Tenant altering the locks without consent. d. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
At the hearing the landlord sought to amend their claim to include compensation for damage to the freestanding fireplace. The landlord seeks $3,015.00, the cost of installing a heat pump to replace the damaged fireplace, to meet the healthy homes standards for residential rental properties.
The Tribunal declines to amend the landlord’s claim to include compensation for damage to the fireplace because the tenant was not made aware of the landlord’s intention to seek compensation for this. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. The landlord is not prevented from making a further application in respect of this matter. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 11 October 2021 with the fixed term ending on 11 October 2022. Thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
The landlord gave 90 days’ notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant vacated the property on 5 May 2025.
At the exit inspection on 6 May 2025 the landlord discovered the property was extensively damaged. The damage was reported to the Police.

How much is owed for outstanding power supply charges?

The landlord seeks $178.74 for outstanding power supply charges. An electricity bill and tenant invoice were provided in the amount claimed.
The landlord states the tenant failed to transfer the electricity account into their own name at the commencement of the tenancy. The power account was paid by the landlord and the tenant was invoiced but the sum remains outstanding.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal was satisfied the amount was due and payment properly demanded. The amount claimed is ordered.

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) of the Act.

Did the tenant return all keys at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $125.80 after paying a contractor to change the lock on the backdoor following the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that the tenant changed the lock without their consent and failed to provide or return a key.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the key at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $332.00, the cost of replacing a bathroom heater missing at the end of the tenancy. No invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which prove a heater was installed in the bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which prove the bathroom heater was missing at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the bathroom heater was missing at the end of the tenancy. However, the Tribunal declines to award compensation. The landlord provided the Tribunal with an insurance report detailing the scope of works to be completed at the property following an insurance claim for fire damage and malicious damage 1 . At page five of the malicious damage report the insurance assessor includes the cost of supplying and installing a bathroom heater in the scope of work. The Tribunal declines to award compensation for the missing heater, to do so would be double dipping. This is because the insurance company is replacing the heater and, Tribunal awards compensation for the insurance excesses later in this decision. The claim is dismissed. 1 Vero Insurance Report – Malicious Damage dated 16 June 2025 & Vero Insurance Report – Fire Damage dated 23 June 2025.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 Tribunal was provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property is an older style but had been recently refurbished. The photographs show it was provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish. There were no obvious visual defects with the walls, floors or chattels.

Did the tenant cause damage to the oven and rangehood?

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the oven and rangehood. During the hearing the landlord amended the amount claimed from $1,149.00 to $751.30. An invoice for the cost of the oven and rangehood - totalling $634.00, was provided. The landlord estimated the cost of installing the oven and rangehood would be approximately $200.00.
The landlord states there was a fire in the property which appeared to originate in the oven. As a result, the oven was burnt out and could not be repaired.
The landlord states the rangehood was also damaged by the fire.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs show the oven and rangehood were provided in a functional, clean and tidy condition.
The end of tenancy photographs shows the oven was blackened with soot.
The insurance reports did not cover the replacement costs of the oven or rangehood.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the oven and rangehood were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

The landlord seeks compensation for two insurance excesses: a. Fire damage excess - $650.00 b. Malicious damage excess - $650.00
The landlord states the tenant vacated the property on 5 May 2025 following the expiry of a 90-day notice. On 6 May 2025 the landlord attended the property to complete an exit inspection. The property was found to be extensively damaged, including: a. Evidence of a fire in the kitchen damaging the oven and rangehood. b. Fire damage in the kitchen, lounge and hallway (including soot and odour). c. Interior walls had been extensively damaged with hole(s) in most walls. d. Carpet had been cut and slashed. e. Doors had been slashed. f. Paint had been splashed around the interior of the property and poured into the free standing fireplace.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs which prove the damage. The landlord said the tenant did not report any of the damage to them during the course of the tenancy and there was no evidence of a break in. The Tribunal notes the tenant failed to return the keys to the property, which required the locks to be changed.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the damage to the property occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Given the extent, nature and type of the damage the Tribunal finds that it was caused intentionally. The amount claimed is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

The landlord seeks $2,172.35 compensation after paying a contractor to complete detailed methamphetamine testing of the property following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The detailed methamphetamine screening test was completed by Betta Property Compliance on 30 May 2025. Nine discrete samples were taken from six rooms.
The laboratory results are recorded below:
A certificate of analysis was provided by Hills Laboratories Limited. The report states that the minimum detection limit for the presence of methamphetamine is less 0.02 μg. The highest recorded reading for the detection of methamphetamine in the property was recorded in the kitchen with a reading of 12.4 μg.
The landlord states that no pre-tenancy methamphetamine screening tests were completed prior to the commencement of the tenancy as the property had been recently refurbished. The landlord’s position is that the positive methamphetamine screening results prove the tenant allowed the drug to be consumed at the property.
The District Court has held that where there is no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing conducted at the commencement of the tenancy, the applicant’s claims must fail. That is because the applicant has not established the premises were contaminated by the respondent during the tenancy.
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred. Certainly, the landlord can establish that there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy, but the landlord has not established that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy, because there was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing undertaken.
I note the District Court decision of Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted there was contamination caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical odours arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other ”undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises, as well as regular visits from the police.
The Court did not accept the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises, and concluded that: The difficulty with the landlord’s claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination because there was no pre-tenancy testing undertaken.
That decision was similar to an earlier case from the District Court of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord.
In that case the landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If they had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant’s using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakened the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s appeal was dismissed.
Given the lack of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant, or someone on the premises with their consent used drugs, contaminating the property. On that basis the Tribunal cannot find the tenant liable for the cost of the methamphetamine screening test and the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

The landlord 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) of the Act. 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 of the Act.
The landlord states the tenant has removed a smoke alarm from the property that was located on the ceiling in the hallway outside of the bedrooms. A photograph was provided which the landlord said showed the position of the smoke alarm at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement records the property was fitted with one smoke alarm, with an expiry date of 31 December 2026.
The landlord states the smoke alarm was not present at the end of the tenancy. Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant removed the smoke alarm from the property and in doing so 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) of the Act.
In considering the section 109 factors the Tribunal finds: a. There was one smoke alarm present at the commencement of the tenancy, that had been regularly serviced, which was missing at the end of the tenancy. There have been no issues reported with the operation of the smoke alarm. The smoke alarm was located at such a height that it could not have been removed without something to stand on. Given these factors the Tribunal finds the tenant intentionally removed it. b. Smoke alarms are critical fire safety measures and are required in all residential tenancies. Removal of a smoke alarm could have serious consequences to life or property damage in the event of a fire. c. In this case the smoke alarm was removed and a fire started in the oven at the property. There was no smoke alarm present to alert occupants or neighbours of the potential danger. Consequently, the premises were fire damaged and required remediation. d. There is significant public interest in ensuring properties are fitted with working smoke alarms. They are an essential warning system, designed to prevent loss of life and prevent property damage.
Taking all factors into consideration the Tribunal awards $3,000.00 exemplary damages. The award reflects the seriousness of the act. The tenant intentionally removed the smoke alarm, and a fire was started in the oven. There was no means of alerting occupants or neighbours of the potential danger, and the property was subsequently damaged.

Did the tenant fail to allow entry by the landlord?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter for the purpose of completing a routine property inspection.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord said that on 13 September 2022 the tenant was issued with notice of a property inspection to take place at 1pm on 7 October 2022. A copy of the notice was provided.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice advising the tenant that they had failed to allow access to the property in circumstances where they were entitled to enter. The notice was required to be remedied by 22 October 2022. The landlord told the Tribunal the notice was remedied, and the property inspection completed.
The Tribunal notes that the 14-day breach notice was issued on 6 October 2022, one day prior to the date specified for the tenancy inspection. There was no evidence provided showing the parties had agreed to change the date of the tenancy inspection. On that basis the Tribunal was not satisfied the tenant had failed to allow access to the property in circumstances where they were entitled to enter.
The landlord said that the tenant failed to allow access to the property for the purposes of a routine tenancy inspection on 7 November 2022.
On 6 November 2022 the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice advising the tenant that they had failed to allow access to the property in circumstances where they were entitled to enter. In the 14-day breach notice the landlord alleges the tenant failed to allow access to complete routine property inspections on the following dates: 7 November 2022, 6 October 2022, 19 August 2022, 13 July 2022, 7 July 2022, and 1 July 2022. The notice expired on 22 November 2022. The landlord told the Tribunal the breach notice was remedied, and the property inspection completed.
The Tribunal was provided with e-mail correspondence between the parties from 23 June 2022 to 7 July 2022. The correspondence shows the tenant asking to reschedule the tenancy inspections due to family difficulties and later asks the property manager to make contact with her to arrange a suitable time for the inspections to occur. The Tribunal addressed the issue with the notice of inspection dated 6 October in para [70]. The Tribunal was not provided with copies of the inspection notices for 13 July, 19 August or 7 November 2022.
From the evidence it is clear the landlord’s attempts at arranging routine property inspections were frustrated by the tenant’s domestic situation and requests for rescheduling. However, there was no evidence of the landlord giving notice for routine property inspections on 13 July, 19 August or 7 November 2022. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant has denied the landlord access to the property in circumstances where they are entitled to enter.
The landlord alleges the tenant failed to allow access to the property at 1pm on 7 August 2024 for a routine property inspection. A 14-day breach notice was issued on 7 August 2024 advising the tenant they were in breach of their obligation to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where they are entitled to. The notice was required to be remedied by 22 August 2024. The Tribunal understands the breach was remedied.
There was no evidence before the Tribunal proving the tenant was issued with an inspection notice requiring entry to the property on the date and time specified. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant denied the landlord access to the property in circumstance where they were entitled to.
The claim is dismissed. Did the tenant use the property for an unlawful purpose
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing methamphetamine to be consumed in the property. The landlord relies on the end of tenancy methamphetamine screening test to evidence their claim.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
It is unlawful to possessor or consume methamphetamine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The Tribunal discussed the issue of methamphetamine use in the property in paragraphs [40] to [53] of this decision. Given the lack of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant, or someone on the premises with their consent, used the property for the unlawful purpose of consuming illegal drugs. The claim is dismissed.

The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord stated the tenant fitted a chain to the front door some time in 2024 and changed the lock on the backdoor without their consent. The landlord said they discovered the back door lock had been changed following the end of the tenancy. By changing the locks without the landlord’s consent, the Tribunal finds the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
In considering the section 109 factors the Tribunal finds: a. The tenant intentionally changed the locks and fitted a chain across the front door. b. Changing the locks without consent prevented the landlord or their agent from being able to access the property. Should the landlord have needed to access the property in an emergency they would have been unable to do so which could have resulted in damage to the property or harm to the occupant. c. By changing the backdoor lock and adding a chain to the front door the tenant violated the landlord’s right to access the property (even with proper notice or in an emergency). Landlord’s (or their Agents and emergency services) need a reliable form of access to the property to ensure compliance with the Act (such as undertaking routine repairs and maintenance) or in the case of an emergency. d. There is public interest in tenant’s not changing the locks without consent of their landlord.
Taking all factors into consideration the Tribunal awards $500.00 exemplary damages. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case. In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312199 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312199 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power supply charges?

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

Did the tenant return all keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant cause damage to the oven and rangehood?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant fail to allow entry by the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power supply charges?

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

Did the tenant return all keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant cause damage to the oven and rangehood?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant fail to allow entry by the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power supply charges?

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

Did the tenant return all keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant cause damage to the oven and rangehood?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant fail to allow entry by the landlord?

Did the tenant change the locks without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power supply charges?

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

Did the tenant return all keys at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant leave all chattels at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant cause damage to the oven and rangehood?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant fail to allow entry by the landlord?

Did the tenant change the locks without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions