Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5433168 — Property damage
Decided 25 May 2026 · Published 25 May 2026 · Application 5433168
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Ya Ping Lin and Yin Xian Zeng $951.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Lin appeared in person. The tenants appeared by video.
- The tenancy commenced 18 April 2018 and ended on 28 December 2025. On 12 February 2026, the landlord filed a claim.
- The landlord’s claims are as follows: i.Failure to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. ii.Damage iii.Interfering with smoke alarms
- The landlord is claiming compensation of $4,305.00 for damage, $ 360.00 for cleaning and removal of garden waste, and exemplary damages of $500.00 for interfering with the smoke alarms.
- The landlord has provided: o The tenancy agreement which includes a pre tenancy inspection report signed by both parties. o A 14-day notice issued on 17 March 2020 concerning the removal of a smoke alarm and keeping a dog at the property without permission. o A 14-day notice dated 31 May 2023 concerning over occupancy and removal of a smoke alarm. o An invoice from a local hardware store. o Two quotes from the same contractor. o Photographs of the property taken during an inspection on 12 December 2018, 17 March 2020, 21 May 2023, 17 June 2024, and at the final inspection conducted shortly after 28 December 2025. Cleaning and rubbish removal
- The landlord is claiming $160.00 for general cleaning of the bathroom cabinet, all light covers, kitchen range hood, toilet, heat pump filters, shower drain trap. The landlord is claiming $400.00 to remove, wash, and rehang curtains in the lounge, bedroom, and dining room, and $40.00 to remove, wash, and rehang a net curtain in the laundry. The landlord is claiming $200.00 to remove grass clippings and other garden waste from under a tree at the rear of the property.
- The tenant accepted that during their cleaning they missed the shower drain trap, the inside of the bathroom vanity (which still had items belonging to the tenant), and some of the light fittings throughout the house.
- The tenant stated that at the commencement of the tenancy, it was not explained how to remove and clean the filter in the range hood or the heat pump filters. They assumed the heat pump would be serviced regularly, which would involve cleaning the filters.
- The tenant denied that the toilets had not been left in a reasonably clean condition, stating that they were both already heavily stained at the commencement of the tenancy due to wear and tear.
- They stated that although they had accepted the condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy as being acceptable, they had not inspected, nor had they been shown, the backs of the curtains and were more focused on the condition of the net curtains. While they denied responsibility for the curtains, they accepted that the net curtain had not been left reasonably clean.
- The tenant noted that some of the curtains shown on the photographs were lying on the floor or in wardrobes and that they had not been left like that.
- The landlord accepted that they had started work on repairs and removed some of the curtains before photographing them.
- The landlord stated they had not conducted the pre tenancy inspection and could not comment on the tenant’s evidence that they had not received instructions on how to remove the rangehood or heat pump filters. There are no photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The tenant stated that at the commencement of the tenancy there had been a pile of grass clippings under a tree at the rear of the property, and that as it appeared to have already been used as a place to put them, they continued to do so. Law
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
- The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant.
- The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces.
- Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
- Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the bathroom cabinet, light covers, and shower drain trap reasonably clean.
- I accept the tenant’s evidence and am not satisfied that it was explained to them how to remove and clean the filters in the range hood and heat pump. There are no photographs showing the cleanliness of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The property falls into the category of an older property.
- I accept the tenant’s argument that the staining on the toilet is due to wear and tear and could not be removed with cleaning. The claim for cleaning is proved in part and I award compensation of $50.00.
- There are no photographs of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. The description of the curtains in the pre-tenancy checklist is "acceptable." I accept the tenant’s evidence that their attention was not drawn to, nor did they inspect, the backs of the curtains in particular.
- Some of the landlord’s photographs show curtains removed and on the floor.
- There is no evidence as to the age of the curtains; however, they must be older than seven years.
- Some of the staining on the backs of the curtains is consistent with having come into contact with the window condensation which is generally fair wear and tear.
- I decline to award compensation for the curtains. However, I am satisfied the tenant is responsible for the cleaning and rehanging of the net curtain in the laundry. I award the landlord $30.00.
- On the basis that the lawns and gardens were provided in a reasonably tidy condition, they should be returned in the same condition.
- There are no photographs from the commencement of the tenancy showing the back lawn area or under the tree where the grass clippings and other garden waste were discovered. The pre-tenancy inspection report does not mention the condition of the lawns and gardens. The landlord is unable to challenge the tenant’s evidence that there was already a pile of clippings present at the start of the tenancy. However, the tenant has accepted that they added to the pile. In this case, I am satisfied that the tenant is partly responsible, and I award the landlord $50.00 to remove the clippings attributable to the tenant. Damage
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for minor damage throughout the property which is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused carelessly. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- The landlord has insurance for damage with an excess of $550.00 per claim.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
- Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may result in the tenant being liability for any subsequent damage.
- The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, that is a loss that naturally flows from the breach. Losses that do not will be considered too remote.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life.
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act. Analysis
- The property was built in the 1960s and has three bedrooms, a bathroom, a toilet, a kitchen/dining area, a lounge, a laundry, and a garage.
- The pre-tenancy inspection report is dated 16 April 2018 and was completed by both parties, containing handwriting from a landlord (not Mr Lin) and the tenant. Apart from minor damage in the kitchen/dining room and bathroom, the property is described as being in an acceptable condition.
- There are no photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord states that about two years prior to the tenancy, they painted the interior and replaced the carpet.
- From the photographs, the bathroom appears to have undergone some refurbishment in the 1980s; otherwise, the property retains most of its original features.
- The landlord has provided photographs taken on 12 December 2018 (approximately six months after the commencement of the tenancy), 17 March 2020, 17 June 2024, and at the end of the tenancy. The end-of-tenancy photographs are divided into four parts, with each part containing 48 photographs.
- Neither party can provide clear evidence of how often property inspections occurred over the seven years of the tenancy. The tenant stated that inspections may have occurred once a year and that they may not have been home while they took place.
- The tenant also stated that during the tenancy, they maintained a reasonable relationship with the landlord, who would occasionally visit to complete repairs.
- The tenant stated that when they had viewed the property in 2018 it was clearly showing signs of wear and tear relative to its age, and they had not bothered to point out many of the minor defects.
- It appears that the tenant may not have reported damage as it occurred, possibly because they considered it to be general wear and tear for a property of its age, and believed the landlord would have noticed it during inspections.
- The tenant questioned why the landlord had waited until the end of the tenancy to raise damage claims. The landlord stated that the damage had only been discovered at the end of the tenancy. I find it difficult to accept that all the damage occurred between the last yearly inspection in 2024 and the end of the tenancy in December 2025. This is relevant where the initial damage is fair wear and tear but has then resulted in other damage occurring.
- The landlord accepted that it was possible that some of the damage had been raised by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord added that if something were broken, and they considered the tenant responsible, the onus would be on the tenant to fix it. This position may cause the landlord difficulty where subsequent damage occurs. The landlord also has a legal obligation to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
- Apart from 14-day notices concerning the smoke alarms, animals, occupants, and removal of a portable cabin, there are no other emails, texts, or other documentary evidence provided by either party relating to the tenancy. Lounge patio door lock ($50.00) [ in brackets next to each claim is the amount of compensation claimed]
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the wooden doors to a patio area showing a latch and deadbolt pin missing. The tenant could not recall whether there had ever been a deadbolt pin, and was certain there had never been a latch. I note that there is a photograph provided, taken 12 December 2018, which shows there is no pin in the bottom lock. Analysis and decision
- There are no photographs showing the door at the commencement of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that there was a deadbolt pin or latch at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Lounge glass door cracked ($140.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing a small crack in the glass of one of the windows in the wooden doors opening onto the patio from the lounge.
- The tenant noted that there was similar damage to other windows present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that the damage may have occurred when an outside umbrella was blown over in the wind but could not be sure. Analysis and decision
- The damage is minor and is consistent with fair wear and tear. Such damage is not unusual in properties of this age. The pre tenancy checklist refers to a window crack in the lounge. I cannot rule out that the crack was present at the commencement of the tenancy but not noted in the pre tenancy inspection report. The claim is dismissed. Carpet in the middle of the lounge has been cut ($80.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the carpet in the lounge showing two small parallel cuts approximately 4cm long. The damage appears consistent with having been made by a sharp object. The landlord stated the carpet was 2 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that it had been damaged during the tenancy but could not recall how it may have occurred. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Damage caused by cutting is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is proved and compensation of $80.00 awarded. Lounge sliding door damaged ($90.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing an internal sliding door which has come off its track. The landlord stated it had not been reported and had caused damage to the frame around the door. The tenant stated that the door had come off its track some time ago. They could not recall when or if it had been reported to the landlord. The tenant believed it would have been obvious to the landlord during inspections but had not been repaired. Analysis and decision
- The sliding door is an original feature of the property and around 60 years old. In my view the damage is consistent with fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Front door deadlock and frame and bedroom door frame damaged ($120.00 and $
- 00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the deadlock at the front door which they claim has been damaged. The tenant stated that the lock had malfunctioned during the tenancy.
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing the frame near the lock which has come away. The landlord stated the damage was consistent with force being applied to the door.
- The tenant stated that the front door had been stiff, and force had been required to open and close it. They did not raise this with the landlord but believed that it would have been apparent to the landlord during inspections when they entered the property.
- The landlord provided a photograph of a frame around one of the bedroom doors showing a vertical crack.
- The tenant was unaware of the damage and noted it was barely noticeable because of the colour of the wood stain. Analysis and decision
- While I am satisfied that the damage to the lock and front door occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear. The issue concerning the lock would have been obvious to the landlord and could have been repaired before further damage occurred to the frame.
- I am not satisfied that the damage to the bedroom door frame was not present at the commencement of the tenancy but not recorded in the pre - tenancy checklist.
- The claim is dismissed. Air conditioner outdoor unit leg damaged ($60.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the heat pump unit outside which shows one of the legs has been damaged. The tenant states that the damage occurred while using a weed eater. It had not affected the functionality of the unit and was not reported to the landlord. The landlord stated that they had not installed replacement feet and had used another object to secure the unit. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is proved and compensation of $60.00 awarded. Bathroom toilet seat broken ($65.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of a crack in the lid of the plastic toilet seat. The landlord states the seat was about 3 or 4 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant stated that they had sat on the lid and that it had cracked. Analysis and decision
- I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable. Although the damage occurred during the tenancy, toilets are designed to be sat on. Plastic toilet seats in residential tenancy properties have an expected life span of around 5 years. In this case the seat was well past its expected life span. The claim is dismissed. Hallway cupboard door (top) missing and damaged ($120.00)
- There is a hallway cupboard which has two doors. The bottom is a standard size, the one above is smaller. The landlord has provided a photograph showing the smaller door is missing. The hinges are intact, but the door is missing.
- The tenant stated that the door broken in half vertically, and they removed it.
- The landlord was aware that the door had been damaged but could not recall when it was raised.
- The tenant stated that the same thing had happened to a similar cupboard door in the kitchen. Analysis and decision
- The door concerned is approximately 60 years old. There are two other cupboard doors which have experienced similar damage. There is no evidence that it has been caused through any fault of the tenant. While I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Bedroom 1 light cover broken ($30.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of a light shade in a bedroom that has been cracked.
- The tenant stated that it had occurred during the tenancy. The circumstances in which the damage occurred suggest that it was caused carelessly. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, likely the result of carelessness. The claim is proved and compensation of $30.00 awarded. Carpet in dining room permanently damaged by brown stains - unable to remove ($300.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of an area of carpet in the dining room which has a large brown stain. The landlord stated that the stain could not be removed, and the only option was to replace the carpet or patch it. The landlord stated that they plan to patch the area.
- The tenant accepted the damage stating that during the tenancy they had placed a small chest freezer on the carpet. Although they had placed it on a carpet square the freezer had leaked causing the damage shown. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Although they took the precaution of placing a carpet square underneath, in my view reasonably prudent tenants avoid placing fridges or freezers on carpeted areas. If they do, they must accept that they will be responsible for any damage that may occur.
- The claim is proved and compensation of $300.00 is awarded. This is less than the insurance excess that would have applied had the landlord made a claim. Window glass in dining room cut with hole for another dog door (no landlord permission) ($180.00)
- The landlord stated that the tenant had installed a “dog” door in a window leading from the lounge onto the patio without permission. The landlord is claiming to remove the door and replace the glass.
- The tenant denied installing a second door. The tenant stated that they did not keep a cat. While they accept, they temporarily kept a dog at the property it was too large to fit through the door that was already there, and questioned why they would bother installing another one the same size. Analysis and decision
- There is a photograph of the patio area taken on 12 December 2018. It shows the existing cat door. It also shows a part of the window where the second door would have been located. However, the photograph is taken at an angle where it is not possible to determine whether there was a second door or not.
- The onus is on the landlord. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not keep a cat, and that the dog they kept would have been unable to fit through the door. The claim is dismissed. Kitchen hot water cylinder cabinet door missing ($120.00)
- The landlord provided a photograph of the top door to the hot water cylinder cupboard in the kitchen. The door has been damaged vertically and half is shown missing.
- The tenant stated that the door had broken, like the others in a bedroom and the hallway. They stated that this had occurred during the tenancy and would have been obvious to the landlord during inspections. Analysis and decision
- Although the damage more likely than not occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied that it was more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Repair wall damages in bathroom, hallway, master bedroom, laundry (repair, plaster, sand, repaint) ($2,000.00)
- The landlord has provided photographs showing damage to walls and doors throughout the property. The damage consists of holes, scrapes, nicks, dings, dents, and chips.
- On its own none of the damage is particularly serious, but it is widespread.
- Some of the damage has been partially repaired.
- Some of the photographs have also been taken after the landlord has commenced their own repairs.
- The tenant accepted that the damage had occurred during the tenancy. They stated that there were two adults and two teenagers residing at the property and suggested that the damage may be viewed as fair wear and tear occurring over a seven-year period. Analysis and decision
- While one or two discrete areas of minor damage occurring in the course of everyday use over a 7-year period may be considered fair wear and tear, in my view, the damage shown in the photographs exceeds this. I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not the result of carelessness.
- The invoice is not itemised. I reduce the amount by $250.00 for pre-existing damage and award the landlord $1,750.00 to repair the damage. I make no further deduction for betterment, as only the damaged areas have been repaired and painted, and I am not satisfied there has been any betterment. The claim is proved and compensation of $1,750.00 is awarded. Tiles damaged in the lounge (repair and recover) ($60.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of a tiled hearth in the lounge where a fire or inbuilt heater had been located, showing some of the tiles on the front edge cracked or missing. The area is not recorded as being damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. One of the photographs taken in December 2018 shows minor damage to the tiles at the front of the hearth. The landlord states that the damage at the end of the tenancy is over and above that shown in the 2018 photographs.
- The tenant stated that there had been some damage at the commencement of the tenancy which they had not bothered to note in the pre-tenancy checklist, as they viewed it as wear and tear. They accepted that during the tenancy they may have bumped into the hearth with the vacuum cleaner, causing some additional damage. Analysis and decision
- There are no photographs showing the condition of the hearth at the commencement of the tenancy. The hearth is an original feature.
- The hearth more likely than not had pre-existing damage. This damage had not been recorded in the pre - tenancy checklist and supports the tenant’s position that not all defects were noted.
- Considering this and the nature of the damage, I am not satisfied that it can be described as more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Driveway path and lawn ground damaged, need repair and recover ($120.00)
- The landlord provided photographs showing an area of worn grass next to one of the concrete driveway strips, a circular patch of dead grass on the back lawn, and a patch of dead grass on the front lawn, where the landlord states the tenant had parked a vehicle.
- The tenant viewed the worn grass near the driveway to be fair wear and tear. They stated that the patch of dead grass on the back lawn had been where a child’s paddling pool had been placed and they believed that the grass would recover over time. Concerning the bald patches on the front lawn the tenant accepted that they had driven and parked vehicles on the lawn. Analysis and decision
- The photograph of the front lawn taken on 12 December 2018 shows that, although not pristine, the front lawn was in a reasonable condition and does not appear to have dead or bald patches. Photographs taken on 17 June 2024 show some damage to the lawn consistent with having been driven on.
- While damage caused by driving off the driveway onto the grass immediately beside it may be considered fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that the damage caused to the lawn by parking on the lawn itself falls into that category.
- Concerning the dead patch of grass on the back lawn, I would describe this as temporarily dormant and not damaged.
- I therefore award the landlord a third of the amount claimed to apply some topsoil and grass seed to the affected areas on the front lawn. The claim is proved in part, and compensation of $40.00 is awarded. Rose plant in garden dead ($50.00)
- The landlord provided a photograph of a rose bush in the garden which they state had halved in size during the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant has failed to maintain the garden properly.
- The tenant stated that they tried their best to look after the gardens but accepted that they were not rose bush specialists. Analysis and decision
- There are two issues concerning this claim. Firstly, there is insufficient evidence to make a before-and-after comparison. Secondly, the tenant’s obligation to maintain the gardens extends to weeding. The tending of shrubs or bushes, such as rose bushes, unless otherwise stated in the tenancy agreement, remains the responsibility of the landlord. The claim is dismissed. Garage side door has been removed ($60.00 )
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing the side door to the garage is missing. The landlord stated that the door was located inside the garage and reattached.
- The tenant stated that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy they discovered that the door was not attached to the hinges, so they removed it and placed it in the garage. They cannot recall raising it with the landlord but stated that throughout the entire tenancy the door had been off and questioned why the landlord had not noticed this sooner. Analysis and decision
- There are no photographs of the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre -tenancy checklist does not cover the condition of the garage. The garage is as old as the house. I cannot rule out that as claimed by the tenant that the door was off its hinges at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Lightbulbs missing (lounge x 3, bathroom x 1) (4 x $6) ($24.00)
- The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy three light bulbs in the lounge and one in the bathroom were missing. Analysis and decision
- Based on the photographs provided, there are three light bulbs missing from inside the house and two from outside. Light bulbs are chattels and, subject to fair wear and tear, should be returned to the landlord in the same condition they were in at the commencement of the tenancy. A light bulb that is blown is fair wear and tear.
- The three bulbs inside the house are missing; however, I am not sure that the outside bulbs were present at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is proved in part and compensation of $18.00 awarded. Heat lamps in the bathroom missing (2 x $20) ($40.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the extractor fan in the bathroom which they state usually contains two heat lamp bulbs. The landlord states that the heat lamps have been removed and replaced with standard, mismatched, light bulbs.
- The tenant stated that the heat lamps had blown, and they had been replaced with standard bulbs. Analysis and decision
- As stated, light bulbs are chattels and, subject to fair wear and tear, should be returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The heat lamp bulbs have blown, which is fair wear and tear, but were not accounted for at the end of the tenancy. They have, however, been replaced with two inferior light bulbs. The claim is proved. In this case, I award the landlord half of the amount claimed. Light fixture in bedroom 2 missing ($30.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing a missing light shade in bedroom two.
- The tenant stated that there had been an old light, but they could not recall what happened to it. Analysis and decision
- Light fittings are listed in the tenancy agreement as chattels and, subject to fair wear and tear, should be returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The tenant has failed to account for the light fitting.
- Light fixtures in rental properties have a useful lifespan of approximately 10 years. Although the light fitting has been accepted by both parties in the pre - tenancy checklist to be in an acceptable condition there is no evidence as to its age. The claim is proved. I award the landlord half of the amount claimed. Outdoor light shade missing ($25.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of an outside light which they claim is missing its cover.
- The tenant stated that the shade slipped from their hands while changing the bulb. Analysis and decision
- This has been described as an accident. I am not satisfied that the damage was the result of carelessness, and in the circumstances, I am not satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Kitchen sink tap cover missing ($20.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph showing the mixer over the kitchen sink. The cap that identifies the hot tap is missing, and the tap appears to have been painted red.
- The tenant stated that they have never noticed this and questioned whether it had been like this from the commencement of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
- While not an original feature of the house the mixer appears to be at least thirty years old. Kitchen taps in houses are usually high use areas. I cannot be satisfied that this is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Two towel rails missing in laundry and bathroom (2 x $30) ($60.00)
- The landlord claims that two towel rails one in the laundry, and the other in the bathroom were missing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant stated that the rails were old and fell off but were never replaced. Analysis and decision
- There are two photographs; however, they are both of the same towel rail in the bathroom. The photograph shows one of the brackets which has come away from the wall. The rail itself appears to be missing.
- The towel rail is an original feature. While more likely than not the damage occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Doorstop missing (bathroom, bedrooms x 4) (5 x $15) ($75.00)
- The landlord has provided photographs showing broken doorstops in two bedrooms and the bathroom. The missing doorstop in the bathroom has resulted in minor damage where the door handle has contacted the wall.
- The tenant stated that they were unaware of when and how the doorstops may have been damaged. Analysis and decision
- There are no photographs showing the doorstops at the commencement of the tenancy. The rooms in which they are located are recorded in the pre-tenancy checklist as being in an acceptable condition. Although the doorstops have been damaged during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. In the case of the missing doorstop in the bathroom, while the tenant is not responsible for the damage to the doorstop, I have found the tenant responsible for the damage to the wall behind the door. The claim is dismissed. Air conditioner remote control cover missing ($30.00)
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the heat pump remote, which shows the cover to the battery compartment is missing.
- The tenant accepted that the cover was missing, stating that they could have taken better care of the remote. Analysis and decision
- I am satisfied that the cover went missing during the tenancy. While the cover falling off may have been fair wear and tear, the failure to keep the cover has been careless. The claim is proved and compensation of $30.00 is awarded. Smoke alarms
- The landlord has provided a photograph of the smoke alarm in the hallway which has been turned off. They state they discovered the alarm had been deactivated while checking them at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord stated that during the tenancy they had issued two 14-day notices for smoke alarms in March 2020 and May 2023.
- The tenant stated that the alarm was activating for no apparent reason and that they had switched them off, although could not recall when they had done so. They accepted that they had not raised this with the landlord. Law
- Properties must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (Regulations).
- Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed within a sleeping space (bedroom), or within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; and on each story or level of the premises.
- 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) of the Act. 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 $3,000.00. See section 40(3A) (b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
- In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: i.The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii.The effect of the unlawful act. iii.The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv.The public interest; and v.Whether it is just to make the award Analysis and decision
- The smoke alarm in the hallway was a qualifying alarm, which meant that it was required under the Regulations.
- The tenant has interfered with the smoke alarm in the hallway, a breach that is an unlawful act.
- Smoke alarms are essential for protecting people from death or serious injury and property from serious damage. It is in the public interest that parties meet their obligations. I award the landlord exemplary damages of $250.00. Costs
- As the landlord has been partly successful, I reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
- The tenant seeks name suppression, the landlord does not.
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenant has been substantially successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression.