What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421449?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437828-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421449?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437828-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48A Sabina Street, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421449 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant did not join the hearing via the video or telephone link as instructed in the notice of hearing. The hearing continued in the absence of the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord has not provided proper evidence in the form of entry and exit inspection reports and photographs in support of this claim. The landlord has also failed to provide evidence in the form of a paid expense claim for cleaning costs incurred. I also note that this claim was not recorded in the original application filed with the Tribunal on 5 January 2026.

In the absence of critical evidence in support of this claim the Tribunal finds the claim not proven.

Accordingly, the claim for cleaning has not been established. Claim for break lease fee

The landlord provided a written agreement signed by the parties dated 9 March 2025 agreeing to extend the fixed term to 10 April 2026. The tenant emailed the landlord on 4 December 2025 advising that he would be moving out on 27 December 2025. The landlord claims that it cost $409 to readvertise the property on TradeMe. They also claim a loss of rent for two weeks rent to when a new tenant moved in.

The landlord says that they were forced to readvertise the property which, as a result, caused financial loss to them. The landlord has only provided a TradeMe payment receipt dated 31 December 2025 for relisting the property.

The RTA provisions are very clear and provides as follows in respect of break lease fees: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.

Unfortunately, the landlord has not provided the tenant with an itemised expense claim as required by section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord also failed to provide a rent ledger setting out the outstanding rent liability.

The claim for break lease fees has therefore not been established.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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.

The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to bathroom vanity and door frame.

The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the toilet door frame. He says that the tenant complained that the door was sticking. The landlord looked at it and believes it’s a result of water damage. The landlord also had a plumber look at it.

The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged a vanity sink which they say has patterns of cracks in it. The sink is approximately 10 years old. They say it is a high-end sink. The landlord claims the amount of $441.00 which is the estimate to replace the item.

The landlord has only provided an estimate to replace the vanity. The landlord has not provided a paid invoice that the vanity has been replaced and a financial loss incurred by the landlord.

Put simply, the claims advanced by the landlord are not supported by the available evidence.

The landlord has also failed to provide a specialist report which indicates that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the damage to the bathroom vanity. There is also no evidence filed in support of the claim for damage to the door frame.

A fundamental requirement is that a landlord must be able to show that they have suffered a financial loss resulting from a breach of tenant obligations. At the very least the Tribunal would have required written confirmation from either a plumber or the vanity manufacturer that the damage was attributable to the tenant and not a latent defect along with a receipt for a new vanity.

The claim in respect of damage to bathroom vanity and door frame have not been established.

The landlord’s application has not been successful and therefore I do not reimburse the application filing fee.

Because the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful the bond must be returned to the tenant.

Reasons