Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5314519 — Property damage
Decided 13 Jan 2026 · Published 13 Jan 2026 · Application 5314519
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2.
- The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The respondent/s]
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- My apologies to the parties for the delay in this Order being issued. As I indicated at the hearing, I was on scheduled leave immediately afterward. Background
- An Order was made on 21 August 2025 ending the tenancy on 7 September 2025 following a fire at the premises on 20 July 2025. The background circumstances are set out in the August Order.
- Paragraph 3 of the August Order states that, “Before the fire, [The tenant/s] and her family had planned to move into a house owned by [tenant’s partner], which is under renovation and able to be occupied from 7 September 2025. The landlords were aware of those plans.”
- For the record I note that the landlords say that is factually incorrect and that they were not aware of the tenant’s plans to move. That does not impact on the decision made.
- Leave was given to the parties to file any further and final claims once the tenancy had ended and the landlords had recovered possession. The Claims
- The tenant asks the Tribunal to make Orders: a. that the tenant not be required to contribute to the insurance excess for the fire claim; b. reimbursing the tenant’s $500.00 contribution to the excess on an earlier insurance claim and rent abatement for the effect on the water supply; c. for exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s obligations regarding installation of working fire alarms; d. for rent abatement due to the effect of the fire on the tenant’s use of the premises e. refunding the tenant’s bond.
- In addition to the excess for the fire insurance claim, the landlords seek compensation for various cleaning and repair costs they say were incurred due to breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and free from damage. Each of those claims is assessed below.
How much is owed for rent?
- Each party provided comprehensive rent summaries and their calculation of the rent position. The calculations are somewhat complicated due to internet charges having been incorporated into the rent during some periods of the tenancy.
- The total rent payable during the tenancy was $142,310.00. Both parties’ calculations agree that the tenant paid a total (including internet) of $144,060.00.
- They have allowed different amounts for the internet charges. For that discrepancy, because it is the landlords’ responsibility to keep accurate records and to prove their claim, I take the figure of $1,500.00 used by the tenant as her liability for internet charges paid with rent during the tenancy. That means the tenant paid rent of $142,560.00 ($144,060.00 - $1,500.00) excluding internet, against a rent obligation of $142,310.00, giving rise to overpayment of $250.00 which should be refunded. The Fire
- There is a dispute about who should pay the excess for the fire insurance claim.
- The landlords must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If that is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The tenant is liable for the actions of people at the premises with her permission 1 .
- There is no doubt that the damage from the fire happened during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
- There is no suggestion that it was caused intentionally.
- The question then is whether the damage was caused through carelessness on the part of the tenant or someone she was responsible for.
- The tenant’s son gave evidence about what happened. He says that he wanted to cook some chips. He put some oil in a pot on the stove and waited for it to heat up, he added the frozen chips. The pot started spitting and the oil caught on fire. He went to his brother’s room, and they we able to make sure they and their sisters left safely. His father [tenant’s partner] was able to put the fire out. 1 S.40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Much of the discussion during the hearing was about whether the fire was accidental. That is not entirely helpful, because if damage is caused accidentally, it means it was not intentional. It does not mean it was not caused carelessly. There is no suggestion that [tenant’s son] intended to cause the fire but many accidents are caused by carelessness.
- This case has some similarities with the situation in Landlord v Tenant 2 where a kitchen fire happened when the tenant’s partner was cooking poori (deep fried bread) - as she had many times before. The smoke from the heated oil activated the sprinkler system which reacted with the hot oil.
- The adjudicator in that case found that: “I accept that [Redacted] may have cooked in the same way on multiple occasions without problems. However, it seems likely that, on this particular day (21 December 2020), when cooking, the oil was overheated, and amount of smoke was at a level sufficient to activate the smoke alarm and sprinkler system. There are important safety reasons for the installation of smoke alarms and a sprinkler system within an apartment complex, in view of the inherent risk to residents of neighbouring apartments that are within close proximity. Therefore, due to these factors, it is reasonable to expect the tenant to ensure that oil that is used for cooking is not overheated to a level that causes excess smoke, and activates the sprinkler system.”
- Here too, the fire was caused accidentally, but it was not caused through an external event the tenant or her family had no control over. It was caused by the tenant’s use of the facilities.
- Like the adjudicator in the above case, I find that the fire and resulting damage was caused carelessly, which means that the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the insurance excess.
- It follows that the landlord is not required to compensate the tenant for any loss of use of the premises caused by the fire. Should the tenant be reimbursed her contribution of $500.00 to the previous insurance claim?
- The parties negotiated the settlement of an earlier claim for damage to the premises by each paying 50% of the insurance excess, $500.00 each. This long after the event with the limited evidence available, it is not possible for the Tribunal to fairly assess whether that was an appropriate way to deal with the 2 Landlord v Tenant [2021] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4298321 issue, which either party could have brought to the Tribunal at the time if they disagreed. That claim is declined.
- It follows that the claim for loss of amenity arising from that incident must also be declined. Smoke Alarms
- The photographic evidence suggests that the premises were not adequately protected by working smoke alarms.
- Alarms are shown missing from brackets or in what appear not to be working condition.
- [Tenant’s son’s] evidence and that of the tenant is that no fire alarms went off during the fire.
- The tenant, who took the tenancy after her sister had rented, says that to her knowledge the alarms were never checked.
- The landlord says that working smoke alarms were provided and it was the tenant’s responsibility to make sure worn out batteries were replaced and that they were not removed or interfered with. The tenant says she did not do that.
- In the agreement itself there is no record or acknowledgment of working smoke alarms being provided.
- In the series of inspection reports provided, only one had a tick beside the notation “smoke alarms working”
- The landlords’ evidence is that at inspections they checked for the presence of smoke alarms and asked the tenant whether they were working and were told they were, but did not themselves check that the fire alarms were working.
- Under s.45 (1)(ba) a landlord must comply with all smoke alarm requirements imposed by regulations. Those regulations require that qualifying smoke alarms be installed. Qualifying smoke alarms must be fully operational and in full working order 3
- The evidence does not show that the landlords met their obligation to ensure that the premises were protected by fully operational smoke alarms. It may be that because the prior tenant was the tenant’s sister, the between tenancy checks were less rigorous that usual.
- Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200,00 may be awarded, where the breach is intentional. 3 Reg 7 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016
- Here the breach was intentional and the Tribunal must decide whether to make an award of exemplary damages having regard to the landlords’ intentions, the effect of the unlawful act and the tenant’s interests 4 .
- I accept that the landlords fully intended and expected that the premises were protected by working alarms. They however put the onus on the tenant to check and confirm that they were complaint and working, rather than making those checks themselves.
- The landlords’ evidence is that a removed alarm was found at the premises after the tenants vacated. That is not evidence that working alarms were provided through the tenancy.
- As occupant there was some onus on the tenant to take the matter seriously and either check the smoke alarms were working or tell the landlord, when asked, that she did not know if they were, so the landlords should.
- There is no evidence that the lack of working smoke alarms contributed to the consequences of the fire. The purpose of the alarms is to warn occupants of fire, not to put it out. Thankfully the tenant’s family were able to escape without harm and [tenant’s partner] was able to extinguish the fire.
- Weighing those considerations, I find that it would be just to make a modest award of exemplary damages Awards of Compensation – principles in assessing the landlords’ claims
- First, the Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
- Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right. However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
- It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the landlords that an award is intended to compensate for. That loss might be represented by the cost of repair or it might be by a lessening in value. 4 S.109(3) RTA
- If the costs of repair exceed the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount 5 .
- Section 49 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to , “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
- In the usual course, it would be expected that after a 6 1/2 year tenancy the landlords would invest in some refreshing of the premises.
Did the tenant meet her 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises were left reasonably clean.
- In the context of his case, with cleaning and repair work undertaken by the landlords themselves, it is important to note that in doing work on their premises, owners are acting in their capacity as landlords, not in whatever other professional/ trades roles they might otherwise spend their time. They are entitled to be compensated for loss incurred through a breach of the tenant\s obligations. That can include compensation for their own time and effort but not profit from it. Hourly charge rates on which compensation is claimed should reflect that. To that extent, while commercial quotes can be a helpful guide, the landlords are not entitled to a commercial return as compensation. Cleaning and garden work
- The evidence shows that the shower, which was installed about a year before the end of the tenancy, was significantly water marked. I find that it was not left reasonably clean and a modest award of compensation is appropriate. 5 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
- The evidence does not show a need for lawn/ garden work beyond the kind of tidy up that might be expected after a 6 1/2 year tenancy. That claim is declined. Rubbish removal
- During the hearing it was agreed that the tenant would collect the items in the garage so that claim does not need to be decided. Carpet cleaning
- The carpet in bedroom 1 required cleaning by the landlords with a rug doctor. Compensation of $140.00 is awarded
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- As noted, 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 she or others at the premises with her consent, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage Carpet replacement
- The evidence shows that carpet in one of the bedrooms was stained and damaged and will require replacement.
- The carpet was 18 months old at the start of the tenancy so 8 years old when the tenancy ended.
- IRD depreciation tables give an expected useful life for carpet in residential tenancies of 8 years, so by the end of the tenancy the carpet was at the end of its projected useful life. I accept that the carpet may have had some residual value and that the landlords may not have chosen to replace it immediately but for the damage. A modest compensation award is appropriate. Wallpaper Damage
- The evidence shows damage to wallpaper that needed repair. Because it was repaired rather than replaced, depreciation does not apply.
- The landlord should be reimbursed the materials cost and some compensation (assessed on the above principles) for their time in doing the work. Wall damage
- Removal of decals and painting of patched areas in the lounge is required.
- The landlord should be compensated for the cost, while recognising that there will be an improvement value for the landlords in having the lounge newly painted after a 6 ½ year tenancy.
- I assess fair compensation at $750.00 Door damage
- The photographs show damage to a door that needs to be replaced. Compensation for the cost of a new door and allowance for associated time in stalling and painting it is appropriate.
- I assess fair compensation at $300.00 Wifi Booster
- I understand that item is to be returned by the tenant so the claim does not need to be determined.
- Each party has had claims upheld an no order is made account the filing fee.