What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395341 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 5395341?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,988.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,332.86 awarded to landlord; Doors: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $319.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395341?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13284083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395341 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 5395341?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,988.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,332.86 awarded to landlord; Doors: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $319.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395341?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13284083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395341 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395341 — net $5,718.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 September 2025	$1,332.86	4. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,332.86.
Water rates	$319.12	Water rates
Carpet replacement	$1,988.06	The claim for replacement of the carpet is proven. Replacement was necessary due to the extent of staining on the carpet.
Repairs: Doors	$450.00	Repairs: Doors
Painting	$1,000.00	The claim for re-painting is proven. Re-painting the two bedrooms was necessary due to the extent of marks and children’s drawings.
Cleaning	$800.00	14. Therefore, I will award the amount claimed.
Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	40. I will award exemplary damages of $2,000.00.
Net award	$5,718.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,718.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 14 February 2025 and ended on 23 September 2025.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, repairs, and exemplary damages (removal of smoke alarms).
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 13 March 2026. [the landlord’s representative] represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Notice of the landlord’s application and of the hearing were served on the tenant in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. 1 Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,332.86.
The rent arrears accrued at the end of the tenancy. Ms Heke’s last rent payment was on 3 September. The tenancy continued until 23 September.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Water rates
Tenants must pay for water that they consume during the tenancy. 2
The landlord’s claim seeks $319.12 for water use.
[The landlord’s representative] provided a copy of the [District Council] water rates invoice for this property. The invoice covers the period from 14 January 2025 until 2 July 2025. The water consumption charge on the invoice is $422.69.
[The landlord’s representative] could not explain how the claim for $319.12 was calculated.
I note that Ms Heke made several payments of $570.00 during the tenancy, which is $20.00 more than the rent. It is possible that these were intended to be payments towards water, but when Ms Heke fell into arrears this credit was (correctly) applied to rent and not water.
The [DC] period covers a period beginning a month before the start of this tenancy but ending three months before the end of this tenancy. 1 Section 92 RTA 2 Section 39(3) RTA
Although it is not clear how the landlord calculated the claim for $319.12, I am satisfied that this is very likely to be an under-assessment of the tenant’s actual use of water during the tenancy.
Therefore, I will award the amount claimed. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
The landlord provided a video showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The house was very dirty. It appears that no (or very minimal) cleaning was done during this tenancy. The premises were far short of the standard of ‘reasonably clean’.
The claim seeks $1200 for cleaning. No third-party invoice was provided for the cleaning cost. The “[Rentals]” invoice simply states a figure of $1200 with no breakdown of hours, hourly rate, or who carried out the cleaning.
Having regard to the end of tenancy video I will award 20 hours of cleaning at $40/hr. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
The landlord provided videos showing the condition of the premises before the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy.
The property was newly painted at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy, only seven months later, the walls were marked, stained, and had children’s writing on them, particularly in two of the bedrooms.
The carpet was approximately four years old at the beginning of the tenancy. The video shows it was in good condition, with no obvious stains.
By the end of the tenancy the carpet was very heavily stained. The extent of damage is quite remarkable given the brief duration of this tenancy. Again, the worst of the staining was in the bedrooms.
Two of the doors were completely off their hinges.
The claim for re-painting is proven. Re-painting the two bedrooms was necessary due to the extent of marks and children’s drawings. Again, the 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA landlord’s invoice does not provide a breakdown of the labour and material costs of this job – it simply states a figure of $1,000.00 – but this figure is fair and reasonable given the scope of work.
The claim for replacement of the carpet is proven. Replacement was necessary due to the extent of staining on the carpet.
The new replacement cost was $2,650.75. Having regard to the age of the carpet and its condition at the start of the tenancy, I will apply depreciation of 25% to the replacement cost claimed.
The claim seeks $450.00 for repairing and reinstating doors. Again, no breakdown was provided of labour and materials. The video shows two doors off their hinges, and some damage on other doors in the house. Given the extent of repairs required, the figure of $450.00 is reasonable. Smoke alarms
Tenants must not interfere with the means of escape from fire, which includes smoke alarms. 4
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to remove or disable smoke alarms during the tenancy. Exemplary damages of up to $4,000.00 can apply.
There were two smoke alarms and a heat alarm in the premises at the start of the tenancy. The smoke alarms were in the hallway and the heat alarm was in the kitchen.
All three alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. This is proven by the landlord’s video and photographs.
The tenant did not participate in the proceedings. I do not know why the alarms were removed. There is no evidence to suggest that the alarms were removed by anyone other than the tenant or someone who was at the premises with her consent.
The tenant committed an unlawful act. The act was intentional. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 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 4 Section 40(2)(ab) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. The act must have been committed intentionally. The reasons for removing the alarms are unknown. b. The effect of the act was to put lives and property at risk. c. There is a strong a legitimate public interest in appropriately penalising tenants to remove or disable smoke alarms.
The usual approach of the Tenancy Tribunal to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 6
In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the tenant removed all of the alarms including the heat alarm, leaving the premises completely vulnerable.
I will award exemplary damages of $2,000.00. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord has been successful in this application. I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00. 7 Name suppression is granted to the landlord. 8

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395341 — net $5,718.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 September 2025	$1,332.86	4. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,332.86.
Water rates	$319.12	Water rates
Carpet replacement	$1,988.06	The claim for replacement of the carpet is proven. Replacement was necessary due to the extent of staining on the carpet.
Repairs: Doors	$450.00	Repairs: Doors
Painting	$1,000.00	The claim for re-painting is proven. Re-painting the two bedrooms was necessary due to the extent of marks and children’s drawings.
Cleaning	$800.00	14. Therefore, I will award the amount claimed.
Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages - removal of smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	40. I will award exemplary damages of $2,000.00.
Net award	$5,718.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,718.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 14 February 2025 and ended on 23 September 2025.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, repairs, and exemplary damages (removal of smoke alarms).
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 13 March 2026. [the landlord’s representative] represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Notice of the landlord’s application and of the hearing were served on the tenant in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. 1 Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,332.86.
The rent arrears accrued at the end of the tenancy. Ms Heke’s last rent payment was on 3 September. The tenancy continued until 23 September.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Water rates
Tenants must pay for water that they consume during the tenancy. 2
The landlord’s claim seeks $319.12 for water use.
[The landlord’s representative] provided a copy of the [District Council] water rates invoice for this property. The invoice covers the period from 14 January 2025 until 2 July 2025. The water consumption charge on the invoice is $422.69.
[The landlord’s representative] could not explain how the claim for $319.12 was calculated.
I note that Ms Heke made several payments of $570.00 during the tenancy, which is $20.00 more than the rent. It is possible that these were intended to be payments towards water, but when Ms Heke fell into arrears this credit was (correctly) applied to rent and not water.
The [DC] period covers a period beginning a month before the start of this tenancy but ending three months before the end of this tenancy. 1 Section 92 RTA 2 Section 39(3) RTA
Although it is not clear how the landlord calculated the claim for $319.12, I am satisfied that this is very likely to be an under-assessment of the tenant’s actual use of water during the tenancy.
Therefore, I will award the amount claimed. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
The landlord provided a video showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The house was very dirty. It appears that no (or very minimal) cleaning was done during this tenancy. The premises were far short of the standard of ‘reasonably clean’.
The claim seeks $1200 for cleaning. No third-party invoice was provided for the cleaning cost. The “[Rentals]” invoice simply states a figure of $1200 with no breakdown of hours, hourly rate, or who carried out the cleaning.
Having regard to the end of tenancy video I will award 20 hours of cleaning at $40/hr. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
The landlord provided videos showing the condition of the premises before the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy.
The property was newly painted at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy, only seven months later, the walls were marked, stained, and had children’s writing on them, particularly in two of the bedrooms.
The carpet was approximately four years old at the beginning of the tenancy. The video shows it was in good condition, with no obvious stains.
By the end of the tenancy the carpet was very heavily stained. The extent of damage is quite remarkable given the brief duration of this tenancy. Again, the worst of the staining was in the bedrooms.
Two of the doors were completely off their hinges.
The claim for re-painting is proven. Re-painting the two bedrooms was necessary due to the extent of marks and children’s drawings. Again, the 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA landlord’s invoice does not provide a breakdown of the labour and material costs of this job – it simply states a figure of $1,000.00 – but this figure is fair and reasonable given the scope of work.
The claim for replacement of the carpet is proven. Replacement was necessary due to the extent of staining on the carpet.
The new replacement cost was $2,650.75. Having regard to the age of the carpet and its condition at the start of the tenancy, I will apply depreciation of 25% to the replacement cost claimed.
The claim seeks $450.00 for repairing and reinstating doors. Again, no breakdown was provided of labour and materials. The video shows two doors off their hinges, and some damage on other doors in the house. Given the extent of repairs required, the figure of $450.00 is reasonable. Smoke alarms
Tenants must not interfere with the means of escape from fire, which includes smoke alarms. 4
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to remove or disable smoke alarms during the tenancy. Exemplary damages of up to $4,000.00 can apply.
There were two smoke alarms and a heat alarm in the premises at the start of the tenancy. The smoke alarms were in the hallway and the heat alarm was in the kitchen.
All three alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. This is proven by the landlord’s video and photographs.
The tenant did not participate in the proceedings. I do not know why the alarms were removed. There is no evidence to suggest that the alarms were removed by anyone other than the tenant or someone who was at the premises with her consent.
The tenant committed an unlawful act. The act was intentional. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 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 4 Section 40(2)(ab) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. The act must have been committed intentionally. The reasons for removing the alarms are unknown. b. The effect of the act was to put lives and property at risk. c. There is a strong a legitimate public interest in appropriately penalising tenants to remove or disable smoke alarms.
The usual approach of the Tenancy Tribunal to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 6
In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the tenant removed all of the alarms including the heat alarm, leaving the premises completely vulnerable.
I will award exemplary damages of $2,000.00. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord has been successful in this application. I will award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00. 7 Name suppression is granted to the landlord. 8

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395341 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395341 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions