What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415953 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 5415953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13614087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415953 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 5415953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13614087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415953 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and exemplary damages for breaches. The tenants have applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos taken on 28 November 2025. The tenants said they went back on 30 November and cleaned and vacuumed as directed by the landlord. I do not have any photos taken after the tenants went back and cleaned. I find the landlord has not proved the house was not left in a reasonable condition.
I note that the claim included cleaning the ceilings and light fittings. It seems to me we have reached a point where it is routinely expected that tenants will clean every surface in the tenancy premises at the end of the tenancy. This is not what is required by the RTA. In most cases the presence of marks on ceilings, light fittings and smoke alarms is fair wear and tear. They do not affect the day to day life of a tenant and they are not part of a usual cleaning routine. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility.
I was provided with some photos showing the need for weed spraying at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they sprayed. The invoice for the work done on the section was dated three months after the end of the tenancy, and it is not clear what work was done. I am not persuaded the work done three months later was because of how the tenants left the section when they moved out.
The claims the tenancy premises was not left reasonable are dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpet?

There is a claim for replacement carpet. 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
The landlord provided me with photos taken at the start of the tenancy. The photos show there were a noticeable stains in most rooms when the tenants moved in. The landlord said there were more stains at the end of the tenancy, but the photos do not support this. The landlord also said there was a smell because the tenants had been fostering pets without the landlord’s consent. The landlord estimated the existing carpet was 10 - 12 years old but there was no supporting evidence, such as an invoice from when it was installed.
In reply the tenants said they were only responsible for one new stain and that was a spilled Fanta in the lounge. They said they had the owner’s permission to look after one animal at a time and there was no smell or stains from that. They said they tried to arrange commercial carpet cleaning but were told the carpet was too old to be cleaned. The tenants estimated the carpet was at least 20 years old.
I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan – stained and at least 10 years old.
I find the landlord has not proved there was a smell. It seems most likely to me the carpet was over 10 years old. I find any order the tenants should pay for replacement carpet would result on the tenants paying for an improvement. The claims for the carpet are dismissed. Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenants are not sure the house complied with the HHS when they moved in. Underfloor insulation and an externally vented rangehood were installed after the tenancy started. The tenants said if they had known the house did not comply when they moved in they would have taken another tenancy. The landlord said the work was completed within 120 days as required by the Regulations. See section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
I have considered the tenancy agreement, the healthy homes statement, and the time it took for the work to be done – 102 days after the tenancy started. I find the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement and the timing for completing the work means the landlord did comply with the rules at the time. The claim for breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have asked for compensation because the tenancy ended 5 months ago and the landlord has been obstructive. As a result the tenants have had financial pressure and unwanted stress. The landlord filed the application for the bond a month after the tenancy ended. The claims for cleaning, lawns and replacement carpet are usual claims and this has been a usual process. I do not find the landlord has acted in a way that would justify compensation. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Neither party has substantially succeeded with the claims and both parties have successfully defended the claims made against them. They can each pay their own filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for everyone and for the tenancy address because I have not found any breaches of the RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and exemplary damages for breaches. The tenants have applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos taken on 28 November 2025. The tenants said they went back on 30 November and cleaned and vacuumed as directed by the landlord. I do not have any photos taken after the tenants went back and cleaned. I find the landlord has not proved the house was not left in a reasonable condition.
I note that the claim included cleaning the ceilings and light fittings. It seems to me we have reached a point where it is routinely expected that tenants will clean every surface in the tenancy premises at the end of the tenancy. This is not what is required by the RTA. In most cases the presence of marks on ceilings, light fittings and smoke alarms is fair wear and tear. They do not affect the day to day life of a tenant and they are not part of a usual cleaning routine. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility.
I was provided with some photos showing the need for weed spraying at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they sprayed. The invoice for the work done on the section was dated three months after the end of the tenancy, and it is not clear what work was done. I am not persuaded the work done three months later was because of how the tenants left the section when they moved out.
The claims the tenancy premises was not left reasonable are dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpet?

There is a claim for replacement carpet. 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
The landlord provided me with photos taken at the start of the tenancy. The photos show there were a noticeable stains in most rooms when the tenants moved in. The landlord said there were more stains at the end of the tenancy, but the photos do not support this. The landlord also said there was a smell because the tenants had been fostering pets without the landlord’s consent. The landlord estimated the existing carpet was 10 - 12 years old but there was no supporting evidence, such as an invoice from when it was installed.
In reply the tenants said they were only responsible for one new stain and that was a spilled Fanta in the lounge. They said they had the owner’s permission to look after one animal at a time and there was no smell or stains from that. They said they tried to arrange commercial carpet cleaning but were told the carpet was too old to be cleaned. The tenants estimated the carpet was at least 20 years old.
I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan – stained and at least 10 years old.
I find the landlord has not proved there was a smell. It seems most likely to me the carpet was over 10 years old. I find any order the tenants should pay for replacement carpet would result on the tenants paying for an improvement. The claims for the carpet are dismissed. Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenants are not sure the house complied with the HHS when they moved in. Underfloor insulation and an externally vented rangehood were installed after the tenancy started. The tenants said if they had known the house did not comply when they moved in they would have taken another tenancy. The landlord said the work was completed within 120 days as required by the Regulations. See section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
I have considered the tenancy agreement, the healthy homes statement, and the time it took for the work to be done – 102 days after the tenancy started. I find the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement and the timing for completing the work means the landlord did comply with the rules at the time. The claim for breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have asked for compensation because the tenancy ended 5 months ago and the landlord has been obstructive. As a result the tenants have had financial pressure and unwanted stress. The landlord filed the application for the bond a month after the tenancy ended. The claims for cleaning, lawns and replacement carpet are usual claims and this has been a usual process. I do not find the landlord has acted in a way that would justify compensation. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Neither party has substantially succeeded with the claims and both parties have successfully defended the claims made against them. They can each pay their own filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for everyone and for the tenancy address because I have not found any breaches of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415953 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415953 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions