What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423575 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 5423575?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423575?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13188848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423575 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 5423575?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423575?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13188848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

212 Factory Road, Mosgiel, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423575 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The applications by both parties for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants by telephone.
On 7/1/2026 the tenants applied for a refund of their bond, compensation by way of rent refund of $990.00 and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and healthy homes standards.
In response on 9/1/2026 the landlord applied for compensation of $1,364.48 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/12/2024 to 1/12/ 2025 at $905.00 rent per week.
The tenancy ended early on 30/11/2025. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicants, in this case both the landlord and tenants, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether either has merit or not. Landlord case

Did the tenants 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 landlord originally sought compensation of $540.50 for carpet cleaning.
However, at the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim due to the evidence provided by the tenants about the carpets having been cleaned.

Are the tenants responsible for 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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The landlord claimed compensation of $918.96 for replacement of front bedroom curtains due to “pulling”.
In support of the claim the landlord provided two photographs taken at the final inspection on 30/11/2025 and a quote.
On the other hand, the tenants disputed that the curtains were in any different condition than at the start of the tenancy and if there was damage it was due to fair wear and tear.
Further the tenants considered the quote for replacement of the curtains was very high.
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.
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.
I am not persuaded by the evidence from the landlord that damage was caused to the front room curtains during the tenancy or indeed if any damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord was unable to provide any entry inspection report due to a change in their electronic system, so comparison of the state of the curtains at the beginning and end of the tenancy was not possible.
Even had I found the tenant was liable for any damage I would have been unable to award compensation because the curtains have not been replaced and the landlord has not suffered any loss.
The claim for compensation for replacement curtains fails. Tenants case [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
The tenants suggested that their quiet enjoyment of the premises had been disturbed by the lawns being mowed on three different occasions between
30pm and 8.30pm.
Although the tenants provided late evidence by way of recordings of the noise involved the Tribunal was unable to access the videos in the form provided.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
While mowing lawns after 7pm is not ideal the evidence does not support that the three occasions breached the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premises and certainly not in circumstances that amounted to harassment.
The tenants provided no evidence that they complained to the landlord about the times the lawns were cut.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.

Are the tenants entitled to a refund of rent?

The tenants submitted the property was advertised at a rental of $885.00, which included cleaning and lawn mowing, but when they signed the tenancy agreement the rent had increased to $905.00 which included lawn mowing but not cleaning.
The tenants wanted a rent adjustment of $20.00 per week for the term of the tenancy totalling $990.00.
The tenants provided a copy of the Trade Me advertisement and text messages between themselves and the landlord.
In response, the landlord submitted that a social worker had negotiated the terms of the contract between the parties, including the start date of the tenancy and the tenants had then signed the tenancy agreement.
To mitigate any difficulties over the start date the landlord confirmed that rent for the first three weeks of the tenancy had only been charged at $885.00 per week.
The landlord provided emails between the social worker, tenants and the owners of the property.
Under section 22G a landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or other person to pay an amount that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement.
Section 22F(1) sets out that a landlord must not advertise or other wise offer a tenancy unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See sections 22F(3)(a), 22G(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
These provisions are reasonably new only taking effect from 11 February 2021 and were intended to ensure landlords did not rent properties to the highest bidder or invite multiple tenants to compete on rent to secure a property.
There is no evidence to support that this was the situation here.
Rather the evidence from the owners during the negotiations with the social worker sets out the itemised maintenance costs for lawns, gardens and cleaning.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the application for compensation and exemplary damages fails.

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included correct healthy homes compliance information in the tenancy agreement and as a result they refused to sign the relevant page of the agreement.
In particular the tenants believed the premises were not insulated.
The landlord agreed the details about ceiling insulation and ventilation were wrong in the compliance certificate due to an administrative error.
In support of their position that the premises complied the landlord provided a property report dated 17/10/2024 and emails and photographs from the owner dated 29/11/2024 and 4/12/2024 confirming compliance with ceiling insulation and draught stopping.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. c. That on or after the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with healthy homes standards. See sections 13A(1A) & 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
Although the compliance certificate attached to the tenancy agreement was incorrect in several areas, I am satisfied that the premises complied with healthy homes standards three days after the commencement of the tenancy.
The emails from the owners, with the photographs are just sufficient to persuade me that the compliance issues noted in the original report had been remedied.
The claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful and the tenant only partly successful.
Suppression under section 95A is granted to the tenants because they substantially successful with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423575 — Smoke alarms at 212 Factory Road, Mosgiel, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423575 — Smoke alarms at 212 Factory Road, Mosgiel, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

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 damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to a refund of rent?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

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 damage to the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to a refund of rent?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions