What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390345 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 5390345?

Smoke Alarms: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390345?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390345?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13513964-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390345 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 5390345?

Smoke Alarms: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390345?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390345?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13513964-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390345 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390345 — net $3,293.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2025	$2,700.00	7. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $2,603.57 to 15 December
Exemplary damages: Removal of smoke alarm	$400.00	Removal of smoke alarm
Lock/key replacement	$165.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee	$28.00	83. The landlords were substantially successful in their application and I will award the landlords the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$3,293.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,293.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390345 — net $3,293.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 December 2025	$2,700.00	7. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $2,603.57 to 15 December
Exemplary damages: Removal of smoke alarm	$400.00	Removal of smoke alarm
Lock/key replacement	$165.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee	$28.00	83. The landlords were substantially successful in their application and I will award the landlords the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$3,293.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,293.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The premises is a self-contained two-bedroom apartment above the garage of Mr & Mrs Sutherland’s property in [Tenancy address suppressed]. Mr & Mrs Sutherland live in the main house, which is separated from the apartment by a fire door.
[The tenant/s] and his family began occupying the premises in April 2025 and they moved out on 15 December 2025.
The parties entered into three tenancy agreements over this period. The last of these was for a fixed term tenancy of six weeks commencing on 1 October 2025.
[The tenant/s] filed Tenancy Tribunal application on 15 November 2025. The landlords filed a cross-application on 20 November 2025.
The parties participated in a Case Conference hearing on 16 January 2025. I made an adjournment order: a. Setting out the landlords’ claim. b. Asking [The tenant/s] to provide a clear and concise summary of his claim. c. Setting the applications down for a one-day hearing at [Location suppressed] Court.
The hearing took place on 15 April 2026. Mr & Mrs Sutherland attended the hearing in person. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $2,603.57 to 15 December 2025. Rent in lieu of notice for abandonment
For the reasons discussed below under the heading “Circumstances around the termination of the tenancy”, this part of the landlords’ application is dismissed. Exemplary damages – removal of smoke alarms
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to: Cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire 1
The definition of ‘means of escape from fire’ includes smoke alarms. 2
[The tenant/s] said that: 1 Section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 7, Building Act 2004 a. There was a smoke alarm in the premises at the start of [The tenant/s]’s occupancy in April 2025. b. In or around August 2025, Mr Sutherland was at the premises on an unrelated matter when he noticed that the smoke alarm had been taken down from its bracket in the ceiling. He told [The tenant/s] to reinstate it.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. Because of the over-heating oven and the absence of a rangehood (discussed below), the smoke alarm would go off whenever they used the oven. b. To avoid this, he took the smoke alarm down whenever they were cooking and put it back again when they were finished. c. He did not mention this to the landlords at the time.
[The tenant/s]’s action of taking down the alarm amounted to an interference with the means of escape from fire. The purpose and effect of him taking the alarm down was to ensure that it would not go off.
The RTA specifies a maximum award of exemplary damages for unlawful acts. In the case of interference with the means of escape from fire, the maximum award is $4,000.
The Tribunal has a discretion to not award exemplary damages, or to award any amount up to the maximum.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 3 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The unlawful act.
There is a difference between a tenant permanently disabling or removing a smoke alarm, and a tenant temporarily disabling a smoke alarm for a brief period of time, during daylight hours, when the premises are occupied. Both are an unlawful interference with the means of escape from fire, but at different ends of the scale in terms of seriousness.
On the evidence available to me: a. I accept that [The tenant/s] removed the alarm because it was going off when he and his wife were cooking. As discussed below, the evidence 3 Section 109 RTA shows that the oven had a thermostat fault and there was no rangehood over the stove until September 2025. b. It is difficult to believe that [The tenant/s] took the alarm down then reinstated it every time that he or his wife used the oven. The alarm is not easy to access. This would have been inconvenient and frustrating for [The tenant/s], but there is no evidence of him raising this issue with the landlords. It seems more likely that [The tenant/s] didn’t raise it with the landlords because he ‘solved the problem’ by taking the alarm down and leaving it disabled. However, I acknowledge that:
[The tenant/s] denies this; and
There is no evidence of the alarm being down other than the time that Mr Sutherland saw it down in August 2025.
Therefore, I will assess exemplary damages at the low end of the scale on the basis that there is no clear evidence that the smoke alarm was disabled for long periods of time.
I will award exemplary damages of $400.00. Replace bathroom door
The claim seeks the cost of replacing the bathroom door on the grounds that the bottom of the door was water damaged during the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland provided photographs showing the damage.
The bathroom is a ‘wet room’ with a tiled floor. There is a shower curtain around the shower area. The shower points towards the floor in front of the door, so if the curtain is not closed when the shower is running then water will pool in front of the door and splash onto the bottom of the wooden door. There is a metal ‘lip’ on top of the tiles, below the door, and there is a small gap between the top of the lip and the bottom of the door, so the door can open and close freely. Mr & Mrs Sutherland’s photographs show that the bottom of the door is warped and obviously water damaged at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy and that is caused by them or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 4
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The extractor fan in the bathroom did not work properly and the window could only be partially opened. This meant that the bathroom was very damp and humid. 4 Sections 49B & 41 RTA b. The set-up of the bathroom means that the floor gets wet because the simple shower curtain cannot prevent water from escaping beyond the shower area. c. The damage is fair wear and tear. d. The damage was already present at the start of the tenancy.
In any claim for damage the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy. 5
The landlords did not provide an entry inspection report or photographs showing the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Without that information, I cannot ascertain the extent of deterioration that has occurred during this tenancy, and I cannot form a view as to whether that extent of deterioration is likely to be fair wear and tear or a result of some careless or intentional action by the occupants.
Therefore I find that this part of the landlord’s claim is not proven. Change of locks
Tenants must return all keys and other security devices to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. 6
[The tenant/s] was given one key at the start of the tenancy. He did not return the key at the end of the tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland provided costings in support of their claim for $160.00 to change the locks.
The claim is proven. Tenant’s claim Background / approach
In the Case Conference order dated 16 January 2026 I asked [The tenant/s] to provide a clear and concise summary of the issues that he wanted to put before the Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] did not do this. He continued to submit piecemeal information.
[The tenant/s]’s position is that the Tribunal should consider that the distress and inconvenience that he suffered during the tenancy easily offsets the “couple of weeks of rent arrears” that the landlord is seeking, and that the fair result is that neither party should owe any money to the other. [The tenant/s] stated 5 Section 49B(8)(a) RTA 6 Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA several times that he is not seeking any money from the landlord, but he was not willing to withdraw his application unless the landlords also withdrew theirs.
The Tribunal cannot take such an approach. The Tribunal’s role is to determine applications that are brought before it. Because parties are usually not assisted by counsel, the Tribunal routinely provides assistance to parties in terms of translating a narrative, or a sequence of events, into a claim that links back to the obligations owed by landlords and tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the Tribunal cannot cross over into the role of an advocate. The parties must formulate their own claim with sufficient clarity that: a. The Tribunal, and the other party, can understand what is being alleged and what remedies are being sought; and b. It is fixed and finite, not amorphous, open ended, and unclear.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland should not be disadvantaged from the fact that [The tenant/s] failed to file the clear and concise summary that he was asked to provide.
Because of that lack of clarity, [The tenant/s]’s claim is limited to the following issues: a. Maintenance – stove, and light in attic. b. Breach of quiet enjoyment / harassment – incident on 27 October and related bail issue. c. Healthy homes – ventilation in kitchen and bathroom. d. Circumstances around the termination of the tenancy. Maintenance – stove
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 7
The obligation to maintain the premises is not a warranty that the property will be free from faults / defects during the period of the tenancy. Rather, it is an obligation on the landlord is to respond promptly and appropriately to any issues that are brought to their attention. 8 Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord as soon as possible about the need for repairs. 9
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The oven had a thermostat problem which meant that it only operated at a very high heat. 7 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 8 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 9 Section 40(1)(d) RTA b. He notified the landlords about this multiple times verbally and in writing. c. The landlords did not take any action until near the end of his tenancy. The oven was repaired about one week before he left the property.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland said that: a. They were not informed about any issues with the oven until [The tenant/s] sent them a Whatsapp message on 27 September. b. The repair took longer than they had hoped due to several issues including difficulties with obtaining access.
It is not proven that [The tenant/s] verbally notified Mr & Mrs Sutherland about this problem before 27 September.
After being notified of the problem on 27 September, Mr & Mrs Sutherland acted promptly to engage tradespeople.
The repair process took longer than is ideal, and I accept that [The tenant/s] suffered some loss of amenity due to that delay. However, in considering what amount of inconvenience [The tenant/s] incurred, it is relevant that it does not seem that [The tenant/s] raised this issue for the first six months of his tenancy. The reasonable inference is that the inconvenience was minor.
I am satisfied that the landlords met their maintenance duty by responding reasonably and appropriately when the problem was brought to their attention, and I will not make an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Maintenance – light in attic
The apartment has an ‘attic’ space. During [The tenant/s]’s occupancy there was no ladder up to the attic. It is a difficult area to access.
[The tenant/s] said that one day he climbed up to the attic and he saw that the light fitting was ‘hanging’. He pushed it back into place. He did not tell Mr & Mrs Sutherland about finding the hanging light. This happened about a month into the first tenancy.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland weren’t aware of the damage until near the end of the tenancy. When they were made aware, they involved an electrician to make sure that the light was safe.
Mr & Mrs Sutherland were not aware of the problem with the light. They acted promptly and appropriately when it was brought to their attention.
The landlords did not breach their maintenance obligation. Harassment – incident on 27 October and bail issue
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their tenants. 10
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 11
There was an incident at the property on 27 October 2025. The police were involved and [The tenant/s] was arrested. Later, the police contacted Mr & Mrs Sutherland and asked them whether they agreed to allow the tenancy address to be given as a bail address for [The tenant/s] at his bail hearing. Mr & Mrs Sutherland said that they did not agree.
[The tenant/s] argued that aspects of the landlord’s conduct on 27 October (such as calling the police and other authorities, and coming to the tenanted premises and speaking with his wife), and their refusal to consent to the tenanted premises being a bail address, caused him significant stress and loss of enjoyment, and amounted to harassment of him.
At the hearing I heard from Mr & Mrs Sutherland and [The tenant/s] about what happened on that day. I have also read the messages that were exchanged.
Having reviewed the evidence available to me my findings are that: a. Mr & Mrs Sutherland responded calmly and appropriately to the events that unfolded on 27 October. b. [The tenant/s]’s messages were serious and disturbing. It was reasonable for Mr & Mrs Sutherland to contact the police. c. Mr & Mrs Sutherland had no part in the police’s decision to arrest [The tenant/s]. d. It was appropriate for them to check in with [The tenant/s]’s wife and make sure she was ok. e. Mr & Mrs Sutherland did not initiate communication with the police about a bail address. They were contacted by the police, as a standard part of the process. Given what had happened on 27 October, it was reasonable for Mr & Mrs Sutherland to be reluctant for [The tenant/s] to return. However, the decision was ultimately not theirs to make. [The tenant/s] was in fact bailed back to the tenanted premises.
None of this amounted to harassment of [The tenant/s] or anything close to it. What happened to [The tenant/s] was a consequence of his own actions and behaviour. 10 Section 38(3) RTA 11 Section 38(3) RTA
This part of the application is dismissed. Healthy homes
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards. 12
The “no later than” date for compliance for all tenanted premises was 1 July 2025.
The healthy homes standards require premises to have mechanical extraction in the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlords installed a rangehood in the kitchen in September 2025.
Prior to that the only ventilation the kitchen was a fan that was not located immediately above the stove.
A fan is an acceptable alternative to a rangehood in the kitchen, provided that it meets the size requirements – minimum diameter (including ducting) of 150mm and an exhaust capacity of at least 50 litres per second.
I have no details of the size and capacity of the existing fan in the kitchen.
[The tenant/s] said that the ventilation fan in the bathroom did not work properly and it stopped working completely before the landlords replaced it in September.
The landlords said that they were not aware of any problems with the bathroom extractor fan, but they took the opportunity to update it when they had the rangehood installed.
There is no mention of problems with the bathroom extractor fan in [The tenant/s]’s messages. It is disputed, and not proven, that [The tenant/s] raised the issue verbally with Mr & Mrs Sutherland.
My findings are that: a. There was a ventilation fan in the kitchen from the start of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards, but this does not create a reverse onus of proof. [The tenant/s] has the burden of proof in respect of his claim. There is not sufficient evidence to establish that the fan in the kitchen failed to meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation. b. There is no evidence to establish that the extractor fan in the bathroom failed to meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation.
Therefore this part of the claim is dismissed. 12 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA Circumstances around the termination of the tenancy
The parties entered into a six-week fixed term tenancy commencing on 1 October, due to end on 12 November.
On 19 October, the landlords gave the tenant 90-days’ notice of termination of the tenancy.
On 28 October, the landlords withdrew the 90-day notice and issued a 42-day notice on the grounds that the premises were required by a family member.
After taking further advice, the landlords formed the view that they were not entitled to withdraw the original notice, so they cancelled the 42-day notice and reverted to the original 90-day notice.
[The tenant/s] vacated on 15 December 2026.
The fundamental flaw in the landlords’ approach is that they treated the tenancy as if it was a periodic tenancy and not a fixed term tenancy. Landlords can give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. Landlords (or tenants) cannot give notice to terminate a fixed term tenancy before the expiry of the fixed term.
The only type of notice that a landlord or tenant can give during the period of a fixed term tenancy is a notice that the tenancy will end at the expiry of the fixed term and will not ‘roll over’ into a periodic tenancy. 13 A notice of this type can only be given between 21 and 90 days before the end date of the fixed term. Mr & Mrs Sutherland could have given a notice of this type on 19 October to end the tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term on 12 November. They gave the wrong type of notice.
This, together the attempted withdrawal of the 90-day notice and then the 42- day notice, created considerable confusion and uncertainty.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give notice to terminate a tenancy knowing that they do not have grounds to do so. 14
My findings are that: a. There is no basis for an award of exemplary damages in this instance. It is not the case that the landlords gave notice knowing that they did not have grounds to do so. They made a genuine error. I am satisfied that this was a genuine error because their actions disadvantaged themselves. b. Because the landlords created the confusion it would be unjust to penalise [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] is not liable for rent beyond the day that he vacated. The landlords’ 90-day notice was fundamentally flawed. 13 Section 60A RTA 14 Section Filing fee, name suppression
The landlords were substantially successful in their application and I will award the landlords the filing fee of $28.00. 15
This decision includes personal information about [The tenant/s]. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I will grant name suppression to [The tenant/s].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390345 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390345 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions