What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406210 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 5406210?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $376.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,136.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,199.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,162.42 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406210?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13654114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406210 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 5406210?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $376.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,136.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,199.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,162.42 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406210?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13654114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406210 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406210 — net $11,696.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,162.42	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$376.99	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$356.30	Window repairs
Replacement of washer/dryer	$184.92	Replacement of washer/dryer
Replacement of laundry benchtop and fence palings including installation	$780.00	Replacement of laundry benchtop and fence palings including installation
Replacement of carpet in three bedrooms	$2,136.42	Replacement of carpet in three bedrooms
Repair holes, plaster and painting work	$5,199.89	Repair holes, plaster and painting work
Exemplary damages-removal of smoke alarms	$1,000.00	removal of smoke alarms
Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises	$500.00	failing to quit premises
Net award	$11,696.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,696.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jessica Sarah Stephanie Graham must pay [The landlord/s] $11,696.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
These orders are in addition to the orders made under this application dated 12 March 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following termination of the tenancy and eviction of the tenant.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace all light bulbs and both smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
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) RTA. The owner’s insurance excess her was $1,000.
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) RTA.
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.
Where damage is proved and results in the landlord having to replace items, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied on the evidence (pre-tenancy and end of tenancy photos) that the damage detailed below was caused during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional because it was substantial with almost every room in the house affected by damage to some extent.
The owners made an insurance claim which has been accepted in part with the insurers making a settlement offer that has been accepted by the owners. The work to repair the damage is currently underway.
Window repairs: The window in the lounge was cracked and chipped requiring replacement.
Damaged washer/dryer unit: The top panel of the front-loading washer/dryer was damaged and lifting. The landlord arranged for it to be tested but it was not working because of the damage and required replacement. The landlord says it was installed in 2019, so was 6 years old at the end of the tenancy.
Damaged laundry benchtop and fence palings: The wooden benchtop in the laundry had been cut off so that the tenant could place their own top-loading washing machine in the space. The piece cut off was missing. Therefore, the landlord had to replace the entire bench. The landlord says that it was installed in 2019, so was 6 years old. Some fence palings were also missing from the property and required replacement. I accept that the benchtop should have lasted at least 50 years to a lifetime. It was only installed in 2019 and was partly removed, as were the fence palings. The costs claimed to replace and install the items are in my view reasonable. Having regard to all those factors, I consider that depreciation is not justified
Damaged carpet in three bedrooms: The tenant was keeping dogs at the property without the landlord’s consent and the carpets smelt of dog urine. Commercial carpet cleaning was not successful to remove the smell. The landlord says the urine had seeped into the underlay and the carpets required replacement. The landlord says that the carpets were installed new in 2021, so were 4 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord obtained a quote of $2,988.00 to replace the carpets in the three bedrooms with the same carpet. The insurer’s loss adjuster assessed the costs to replace the carpet at a higher amount of $4,377.01 for insurance settlement purposes. I have assessed the landlord’s claim using the lower quote.
Interior damage to walls and doors: There was considerable damage throughout the premises to walls, doors, and door frames, including holes, scrapes and gouges. These areas required gib patching, plastering, sanding, and painting. The landlord has confirmed that only the repaired areas have been repainted where necessary to make good. On that basis, I accept their submission that the painting work should not be depreciated as it is part of the repair work required.
The landlord obtained a quote for the interior work from a building company in the sum of $8,260. The quote was not itemised. The insurers loss adjuster assessed the costs to repair the damage room by room. Therefore, I have assessed the landlord’s claim using the loss adjuster’s figures. The insurer declined to cover some damage in bedroom 1 and 2 and the landlord did not have an itemised repair cost for the damage. Therefore, the landlord has withdrawn those claims.
The amounts claimed and the appropriate reduction for depreciation is summarised in the following table: ItemReplacement cost/claim Estimated lifeReduction for depreciation Award Lounge window$356.30NANA$356.30 Washer/dryer$1,232.807 years6/7yrs (85%)$184.92 Laundry bench & fence palings $78050 years to lifetime 0%$780.00 *Bedroom carpet $2,988,0014 years4/14 yrs (28.5%) $2,136.42 *Living room wall damage $1,736.62NA (repairs)NA$1,736.62 *Bedroom 1 hole in wall $675.00NA (repairs)NA$675.00 *Bedroom 3 wall damage $1,272.11NA (repairs)NA$1,272.11 *Hall damage$1,516.11NA (repairs)NA$1,516.11 *Covered by insurance to a limited extent
The total amount awarded for the interior damage to walls and doors above is $5,199.89.
The amounts awarded for carpet replacement and interior damage are covered by insurance to a limited extent. The insurer has agreed to pay so much of the repair costs that exceed the insurance excess of $1,000 for each incident.
However, the tenant is liable for the full amount assessed because it is intentional damage. The RTA has significant restrictions around recovery of money when insurance is involved, but that only applies to careless damage (see s 49B RTA).
The Tribunal considers there is no injustice arising with a landlord receiving a payment from the insurer, and then a payment from the tenant pursuant to a Tribunal order for the same intentional damage claims. That is because: a. The landlord is obligated to pay the money to the insurer, so this is not a case where the landlord could rightfully double dip. b. It is fair. A tenant should not escape any consequences for causing damage just because the insurer came to the party. If the damage had been careless, then the tenant would have to pay the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent (see s49B RTA). It could not have been in Parliament's contemplation that the situation would be better for a tenant who intentionally damaged the premises versus a tenant who carelessly damaged the premises. c. There continues to be a right of subrogation and other rights for the insurer because this is intentional damage. The insurer loses their rights to recover careless damage costs (see s49C RTA), but that is not the case for intentional damage. d. It is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages 1 . The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises?

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA.
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 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord obtained a conditional termination order against the tenant on 30 May 2025 requiring the tenant to pay current rent plus an extra $50 each week towards arrears. If the tenant failed to make any payment within 2 working days 1 Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34 of the due date, the tenancy terminated, and the landlord was to have immediate possession of the premises. The tenant defaulted with rent and arrears payments, with no payments made after 10 October 2025.
After defaulting on the payments there were several emails between the parties. The tenant advised that her benefit had been stopped and she was working with WINZ to pay the arrears and reinstate the payments. Initially, the landlord was willing to wait because this had happened before. However, once payment did not eventuate, the landlord notified the tenant that the termination would take effect on 14 November 2025, and the landlord would inspect the property on 17 November. The tenant did not quit the premises on 14 November and the landlord was required to apply for eviction, which took place on 10 December 2025, almost 4 weeks later.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Therefore, I have no information as to why she did not quit the premises. In the absence of any information, I must conclude that the tenant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to quit the premises during this time.
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligation to quit the premises, without reasonable excuse, which is 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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved. The effect of the unlawful act was to further delay the landlord’s ability to take possession of the property and re-let it during which time arrears continued to escalate. The landlord was also put to extra cost in having to obtain an eviction order from the District Court. It is of significant interest to landlords and the Public that tenants comply with their obligations. In the circumstances I award $500 exemplary damages. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of prior breaches of this nature by the tenant.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for removing 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) RTA. 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 RTA.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there were two smoke alarms at the property in the living room and the hall. At the end of the tenancy the smoke alarms had been removed. The landlord found them at the property, but they had been damaged and had to be replaced. The tenant has interfered with the “means of escape from fire” by removing the smoke alarms. This is an unlawful act.
Again, as the tenant did not attend the hearing, I have no information as to why the alarms were removed. The landlord supplied a smoke alarm compliance certificate from their contractor following an inspection on 21 February 2025. The certificate confirms the position of the alarms; that they were in working order; and not due to expire until September 2033.
In the absence of any information, I must conclude that the tenant intentionally removed the smoke alarms. The effect of this action was to put her life and the landlord’s property at risk.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords fit compliant and working smoke alarms in residential properties, and that tenants do not interfere with those smoke alarms. It is well recognised that smoke alarms are a simple, inexpensive, and highly effective means of reducing the risk of loss of life and the extent of damage to property in the event of a fire.
Having regard to these factors, I award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of prior breaches of this nature by the tenant.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details as requested. The landlord tells me that they have already been awarded the filing fee in previous orders.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406210 — net $11,696.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,162.42	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$376.99	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$356.30	Window repairs
Replacement of washer/dryer	$184.92	Replacement of washer/dryer
Replacement of laundry benchtop and fence palings including installation	$780.00	Replacement of laundry benchtop and fence palings including installation
Replacement of carpet in three bedrooms	$2,136.42	Replacement of carpet in three bedrooms
Repair holes, plaster and painting work	$5,199.89	Repair holes, plaster and painting work
Exemplary damages-removal of smoke alarms	$1,000.00	removal of smoke alarms
Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises	$500.00	failing to quit premises
Net award	$11,696.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,696.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jessica Sarah Stephanie Graham must pay [The landlord/s] $11,696.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
These orders are in addition to the orders made under this application dated 12 March 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following termination of the tenancy and eviction of the tenant.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace all light bulbs and both smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 RTA.
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) RTA. The owner’s insurance excess her was $1,000.
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) RTA.
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.
Where damage is proved and results in the landlord having to replace items, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied on the evidence (pre-tenancy and end of tenancy photos) that the damage detailed below was caused during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional because it was substantial with almost every room in the house affected by damage to some extent.
The owners made an insurance claim which has been accepted in part with the insurers making a settlement offer that has been accepted by the owners. The work to repair the damage is currently underway.
Window repairs: The window in the lounge was cracked and chipped requiring replacement.
Damaged washer/dryer unit: The top panel of the front-loading washer/dryer was damaged and lifting. The landlord arranged for it to be tested but it was not working because of the damage and required replacement. The landlord says it was installed in 2019, so was 6 years old at the end of the tenancy.
Damaged laundry benchtop and fence palings: The wooden benchtop in the laundry had been cut off so that the tenant could place their own top-loading washing machine in the space. The piece cut off was missing. Therefore, the landlord had to replace the entire bench. The landlord says that it was installed in 2019, so was 6 years old. Some fence palings were also missing from the property and required replacement. I accept that the benchtop should have lasted at least 50 years to a lifetime. It was only installed in 2019 and was partly removed, as were the fence palings. The costs claimed to replace and install the items are in my view reasonable. Having regard to all those factors, I consider that depreciation is not justified
Damaged carpet in three bedrooms: The tenant was keeping dogs at the property without the landlord’s consent and the carpets smelt of dog urine. Commercial carpet cleaning was not successful to remove the smell. The landlord says the urine had seeped into the underlay and the carpets required replacement. The landlord says that the carpets were installed new in 2021, so were 4 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord obtained a quote of $2,988.00 to replace the carpets in the three bedrooms with the same carpet. The insurer’s loss adjuster assessed the costs to replace the carpet at a higher amount of $4,377.01 for insurance settlement purposes. I have assessed the landlord’s claim using the lower quote.
Interior damage to walls and doors: There was considerable damage throughout the premises to walls, doors, and door frames, including holes, scrapes and gouges. These areas required gib patching, plastering, sanding, and painting. The landlord has confirmed that only the repaired areas have been repainted where necessary to make good. On that basis, I accept their submission that the painting work should not be depreciated as it is part of the repair work required.
The landlord obtained a quote for the interior work from a building company in the sum of $8,260. The quote was not itemised. The insurers loss adjuster assessed the costs to repair the damage room by room. Therefore, I have assessed the landlord’s claim using the loss adjuster’s figures. The insurer declined to cover some damage in bedroom 1 and 2 and the landlord did not have an itemised repair cost for the damage. Therefore, the landlord has withdrawn those claims.
The amounts claimed and the appropriate reduction for depreciation is summarised in the following table: ItemReplacement cost/claim Estimated lifeReduction for depreciation Award Lounge window$356.30NANA$356.30 Washer/dryer$1,232.807 years6/7yrs (85%)$184.92 Laundry bench & fence palings $78050 years to lifetime 0%$780.00 *Bedroom carpet $2,988,0014 years4/14 yrs (28.5%) $2,136.42 *Living room wall damage $1,736.62NA (repairs)NA$1,736.62 *Bedroom 1 hole in wall $675.00NA (repairs)NA$675.00 *Bedroom 3 wall damage $1,272.11NA (repairs)NA$1,272.11 *Hall damage$1,516.11NA (repairs)NA$1,516.11 *Covered by insurance to a limited extent
The total amount awarded for the interior damage to walls and doors above is $5,199.89.
The amounts awarded for carpet replacement and interior damage are covered by insurance to a limited extent. The insurer has agreed to pay so much of the repair costs that exceed the insurance excess of $1,000 for each incident.
However, the tenant is liable for the full amount assessed because it is intentional damage. The RTA has significant restrictions around recovery of money when insurance is involved, but that only applies to careless damage (see s 49B RTA).
The Tribunal considers there is no injustice arising with a landlord receiving a payment from the insurer, and then a payment from the tenant pursuant to a Tribunal order for the same intentional damage claims. That is because: a. The landlord is obligated to pay the money to the insurer, so this is not a case where the landlord could rightfully double dip. b. It is fair. A tenant should not escape any consequences for causing damage just because the insurer came to the party. If the damage had been careless, then the tenant would have to pay the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent (see s49B RTA). It could not have been in Parliament's contemplation that the situation would be better for a tenant who intentionally damaged the premises versus a tenant who carelessly damaged the premises. c. There continues to be a right of subrogation and other rights for the insurer because this is intentional damage. The insurer loses their rights to recover careless damage costs (see s49C RTA), but that is not the case for intentional damage. d. It is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages 1 . The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises?

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA.
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 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord obtained a conditional termination order against the tenant on 30 May 2025 requiring the tenant to pay current rent plus an extra $50 each week towards arrears. If the tenant failed to make any payment within 2 working days 1 Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34 of the due date, the tenancy terminated, and the landlord was to have immediate possession of the premises. The tenant defaulted with rent and arrears payments, with no payments made after 10 October 2025.
After defaulting on the payments there were several emails between the parties. The tenant advised that her benefit had been stopped and she was working with WINZ to pay the arrears and reinstate the payments. Initially, the landlord was willing to wait because this had happened before. However, once payment did not eventuate, the landlord notified the tenant that the termination would take effect on 14 November 2025, and the landlord would inspect the property on 17 November. The tenant did not quit the premises on 14 November and the landlord was required to apply for eviction, which took place on 10 December 2025, almost 4 weeks later.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Therefore, I have no information as to why she did not quit the premises. In the absence of any information, I must conclude that the tenant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to quit the premises during this time.
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligation to quit the premises, without reasonable excuse, which is 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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved. The effect of the unlawful act was to further delay the landlord’s ability to take possession of the property and re-let it during which time arrears continued to escalate. The landlord was also put to extra cost in having to obtain an eviction order from the District Court. It is of significant interest to landlords and the Public that tenants comply with their obligations. In the circumstances I award $500 exemplary damages. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of prior breaches of this nature by the tenant.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for removing 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) RTA. 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 RTA.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there were two smoke alarms at the property in the living room and the hall. At the end of the tenancy the smoke alarms had been removed. The landlord found them at the property, but they had been damaged and had to be replaced. The tenant has interfered with the “means of escape from fire” by removing the smoke alarms. This is an unlawful act.
Again, as the tenant did not attend the hearing, I have no information as to why the alarms were removed. The landlord supplied a smoke alarm compliance certificate from their contractor following an inspection on 21 February 2025. The certificate confirms the position of the alarms; that they were in working order; and not due to expire until September 2033.
In the absence of any information, I must conclude that the tenant intentionally removed the smoke alarms. The effect of this action was to put her life and the landlord’s property at risk.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords fit compliant and working smoke alarms in residential properties, and that tenants do not interfere with those smoke alarms. It is well recognised that smoke alarms are a simple, inexpensive, and highly effective means of reducing the risk of loss of life and the extent of damage to property in the event of a fire.
Having regard to these factors, I award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of prior breaches of this nature by the tenant.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details as requested. The landlord tells me that they have already been awarded the filing fee in previous orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406210 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406210 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for removing the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages for removing the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions