What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333902 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (BN-00029953) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5333902?

Property Damage: $1,932.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,171.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $88.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333902?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12619613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333902 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (BN-00029953) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5333902?

Property Damage: $1,932.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,171.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $88.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333902?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12619613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4E Old Wairoa Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333902 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333902 — net $2,801.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 26 June 2025	$1,171.43		Rent to 26 June 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$88.07		Water charges to end of tenancy
Rubbish removal	$60.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs	$1,932.00		Repairs
Compensation – smoke alarms		$450.00	Compensation – smoke alarms
Total award	$3,251.50	$450.00
Net award	$2,801.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,801.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (BN-00029953) immediately apportioned as follows: Oaks Property Management Limited as Agent for Sukhraj Kaur & Harinder Singh: $2,801.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $478.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 October 2025. The owner of the premises also attended and addressed the Tribunal. Background
The tenancy started on 11 February 2025. On 14 May 2025 the landlord gave notice to terminate. In accordance with the notice, the tenancy ended on 26 February 2025. The tenant moved out the following day.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond and for compensation and exemplary damages for failure to comply with the requirements for smoke alarms.
The landlord cross-applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and refund of the bond. The tenant did not dispute the claim for rent arrears and water charges which were supported by a rent summary and water invoices. Rubbish Removal
The tenant had an obligation at the end of the tenancy to remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. There was only a small amount of rubbish at the property when the tenancy ended. The landlord incurred the cost of disposing of the rubbish at a transfer station on 28 June 2025 ($60.00).
The tenant provided photographs of the items she said were there when she moved in. They included garden ornaments, mops, and a wooden door (possibly for access under the house). The landlord’s ingoing inspection report shows the same items outside the house (see ingoing inspection photographs 237-240). The landlord’s photograph of the rubbish taken to the transfer station includes the mops but also different items.
The tenant had an obligation to remove the rubbish, although I do not consider this extended to items already at the premises when she moved in. On the balance of probabilities, I find that there were at least some items of rubbish at the property at the start of the tenancy. Not all the items taken to the transfer station belonged to the tenant. However, some of them probably did. The landlord has borne the labour cost of removal. I consider it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that the landlord is reimbursed for the tip fee. Damage
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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. The landlord said he did not have house insurance. The weekly rent was $820.00.
The landlord said there was damage to the walls during the tenancy. The tenant noted the ingoing inspection report, which referred to marks and scuffs on the walls in most rooms.
The owner provided a document comparing the condition of the walls on 5 February 2025 (just prior to commencement of the tenancy on 11 February 2025) with their condition on 27 June 2025. I accept that the photographs do show some areas of further or worse damage, for example, the holes where the TV was mounted in the living area. A row of key hooks was missing from a wall and there was some scraping against a bedroom wall. The owner said a small hole that the tenant had patched was soft because it had been plastered over without a gib substrate.
I find that there was some additional damage to the walls during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The repairs were directed to those specific areas. I award the amount claimed for painting, which is less than four weeks’ rent. Smoke Alarms
The ingoing inspection report noted that the smoke alarms had been removed and were stored in a box. I understand they had been removed because some painting had been done to the ceilings. The report includes photographs of empty smoke alarm brackets and the smoke alarms in a box on the floor.
The landlord said they informed the tenant that they would arrange for the smoke alarms to be put back up. The landlord said they were unable to gain access to reinstall the smoke alarms. There is an email dated 7 September 2025 from the contractor (who also provided the Healthy Homes report) stating that the tenant had declined to give access on three occasions.
The tenant said the issue with the smoke alarms was only raised by the landlord after the Healthy Homes Assessment was performed on about 15 April 2025. The tenant acknowledged that she knew the smoke alarms were not present when she moved in, and that she did not really know how to install them.
Landlords are required to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. The regulations require working smoke alarms to be installed in certain locations. Smoke alarms must be installed at the start of the tenancy and at all times during the tenancy. A landlord who fails to comply with the regulations commits an “unlawful act”. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it would be just to require exemplary damages to be paid.
The evidence shows that both parties knew the smoke alarms had not been re- installed when the tenancy began. The landlord gave instructions to the contractor on 17 April 2025 to install the smoke alarms. This appears to have been a response to the Healthy Homes Assessment report which was received that day. The smoke alarms ought to have been re-installed prior to the tenant moving in. It is not clear that difficulties with access were the reason for the delay, because the contractor was able to enter for the Healthy Homes review. However, the landlord immediately requested that smoke alarms be installed when alerted by the Healthy Homes report.
Overall, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages for what was probably an oversight on the landlord’s part. The landlord had recognised that the smoke alarms needed to be put back. There was, however, a breach of the landlord’s obligations and the occupants of the premises were put at risk as a result. The tenant said the lack of smoke alarms caused distress, but there is nothing suggesting this concern was put in writing, whether in an email or by text message. In my view, both parties bear some responsibility for the oversight, as both knew the smoke alarms needed reinstalling. That said, the requirements for smoke alarms are a fundamental legal obligation imposed on landlords. I award compensation to the tenant of $450.00 to reflect the potentially serious consequences of the error.
The award is properly made against the landlord and not the owner (who was not a party to the application). The landlord, although acting as the property manager and therefore as an agent, was responsible for ensuring the smoke alarms were installed and working. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties requested name suppression. Neither has been “wholly or substantially” successful, so they are not entitled to suppression. There is no compelling reason for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to grant suppression after having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333902 — net $2,801.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 26 June 2025	$1,171.43		Rent to 26 June 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$88.07		Water charges to end of tenancy
Rubbish removal	$60.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs	$1,932.00		Repairs
Compensation – smoke alarms		$450.00	Compensation – smoke alarms
Total award	$3,251.50	$450.00
Net award	$2,801.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,801.50

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (BN-00029953) immediately apportioned as follows: Oaks Property Management Limited as Agent for Sukhraj Kaur & Harinder Singh: $2,801.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $478.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 October 2025. The owner of the premises also attended and addressed the Tribunal. Background
The tenancy started on 11 February 2025. On 14 May 2025 the landlord gave notice to terminate. In accordance with the notice, the tenancy ended on 26 February 2025. The tenant moved out the following day.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond and for compensation and exemplary damages for failure to comply with the requirements for smoke alarms.
The landlord cross-applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and refund of the bond. The tenant did not dispute the claim for rent arrears and water charges which were supported by a rent summary and water invoices. Rubbish Removal
The tenant had an obligation at the end of the tenancy to remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. There was only a small amount of rubbish at the property when the tenancy ended. The landlord incurred the cost of disposing of the rubbish at a transfer station on 28 June 2025 ($60.00).
The tenant provided photographs of the items she said were there when she moved in. They included garden ornaments, mops, and a wooden door (possibly for access under the house). The landlord’s ingoing inspection report shows the same items outside the house (see ingoing inspection photographs 237-240). The landlord’s photograph of the rubbish taken to the transfer station includes the mops but also different items.
The tenant had an obligation to remove the rubbish, although I do not consider this extended to items already at the premises when she moved in. On the balance of probabilities, I find that there were at least some items of rubbish at the property at the start of the tenancy. Not all the items taken to the transfer station belonged to the tenant. However, some of them probably did. The landlord has borne the labour cost of removal. I consider it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that the landlord is reimbursed for the tip fee. Damage
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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. The landlord said he did not have house insurance. The weekly rent was $820.00.
The landlord said there was damage to the walls during the tenancy. The tenant noted the ingoing inspection report, which referred to marks and scuffs on the walls in most rooms.
The owner provided a document comparing the condition of the walls on 5 February 2025 (just prior to commencement of the tenancy on 11 February 2025) with their condition on 27 June 2025. I accept that the photographs do show some areas of further or worse damage, for example, the holes where the TV was mounted in the living area. A row of key hooks was missing from a wall and there was some scraping against a bedroom wall. The owner said a small hole that the tenant had patched was soft because it had been plastered over without a gib substrate.
I find that there was some additional damage to the walls during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The repairs were directed to those specific areas. I award the amount claimed for painting, which is less than four weeks’ rent. Smoke Alarms
The ingoing inspection report noted that the smoke alarms had been removed and were stored in a box. I understand they had been removed because some painting had been done to the ceilings. The report includes photographs of empty smoke alarm brackets and the smoke alarms in a box on the floor.
The landlord said they informed the tenant that they would arrange for the smoke alarms to be put back up. The landlord said they were unable to gain access to reinstall the smoke alarms. There is an email dated 7 September 2025 from the contractor (who also provided the Healthy Homes report) stating that the tenant had declined to give access on three occasions.
The tenant said the issue with the smoke alarms was only raised by the landlord after the Healthy Homes Assessment was performed on about 15 April 2025. The tenant acknowledged that she knew the smoke alarms were not present when she moved in, and that she did not really know how to install them.
Landlords are required to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. The regulations require working smoke alarms to be installed in certain locations. Smoke alarms must be installed at the start of the tenancy and at all times during the tenancy. A landlord who fails to comply with the regulations commits an “unlawful act”. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it would be just to require exemplary damages to be paid.
The evidence shows that both parties knew the smoke alarms had not been re- installed when the tenancy began. The landlord gave instructions to the contractor on 17 April 2025 to install the smoke alarms. This appears to have been a response to the Healthy Homes Assessment report which was received that day. The smoke alarms ought to have been re-installed prior to the tenant moving in. It is not clear that difficulties with access were the reason for the delay, because the contractor was able to enter for the Healthy Homes review. However, the landlord immediately requested that smoke alarms be installed when alerted by the Healthy Homes report.
Overall, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages for what was probably an oversight on the landlord’s part. The landlord had recognised that the smoke alarms needed to be put back. There was, however, a breach of the landlord’s obligations and the occupants of the premises were put at risk as a result. The tenant said the lack of smoke alarms caused distress, but there is nothing suggesting this concern was put in writing, whether in an email or by text message. In my view, both parties bear some responsibility for the oversight, as both knew the smoke alarms needed reinstalling. That said, the requirements for smoke alarms are a fundamental legal obligation imposed on landlords. I award compensation to the tenant of $450.00 to reflect the potentially serious consequences of the error.
The award is properly made against the landlord and not the owner (who was not a party to the application). The landlord, although acting as the property manager and therefore as an agent, was responsible for ensuring the smoke alarms were installed and working. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Both parties requested name suppression. Neither has been “wholly or substantially” successful, so they are not entitled to suppression. There is no compelling reason for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to grant suppression after having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333902 — Property damage at 4E Old Wairoa Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333902 — Property damage at 4E Old Wairoa Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.