What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484916 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5484916?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484916?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13794836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484916 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5484916?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484916?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13794836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484916 — Smoke alarms

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including the guarantor AB.
This tenancy commenced on 6 May 2024 and ended on 5 January 2026.
The landlord seek compensation and exemplary damages against the tenants. The landlord articulated their claims as follows: a) Unlawful act - removing batteries from smoke alarm b) Liability for guests - responsible for father's action as a criminal person - using bail address as [tenancy address], dealing or using drugs. c) Overcrowding – tenants’ father was living in the property as an unauthorised person. The tenant allowed him to live at the property illegally - claiming he was their care giver - but not living at the property. They lied - bail address (for the father) and neighbours have confirmed that.
The landlord as the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The bond was fully and jointly refunded to the tenants at the end of the tenancy.
While the landlord were still able to make a monetary claim against the tenant presently, the fact that the bond has been refunded to the tenants without issue by the landlord is relevant towards the issue of credibility and whether the landlord’s claim overall is meritorious in the circumstances.
On the removal of smoke alarm batteries, the tenant acknowledged having removed the batteries during the tenancy but explained it was because the smoke alarm was beeping intermittently. This is because the battery level was low towards the end of their tenancy.
When the landlord noticed it, the landlord emailed the tenant on 11 January 2026 to commend them for leaving the premises professionally clean. The landlord mentioned that the smoke alarm batteries have been removed and “either you replace it or I have to do it if you can’t”.
The tenant then replied by email on 12 January 2026 to say that they will send J (the new tenant) the money to buy them and replace them as they were not in Auckland at the time. The tenant asked the landlord, “would that work”?
The landlord never replied to that email but duly signed over the entire bond to the tenant. I take that to mean that at the material time, the landlord did not have any issue against the tenant’s removal of the smoke alarm batteries and the landlord have likely replaced the batteries themselves.
I accept the tenant’s explanation that the removal of the smoke alarm batteries was not malicious or intentional. Their offer to pay and ask the new tenant to replace it was not accepted by the landlord.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for allegedly tampering with the smoke alarm.
I now address the landlord’s claim that the tenants should not have housed their father at the premises because he is a “criminal person”.
I start by stating that it is not an offence or unlawful to have persons of questionable character live at the property, provided the extra occupant is not in breach of the maximum number of occupants permitted on the tenancy agreement. More so in this case, the person in question was the tenants’ biological father.
While the father’s residency at the premises may technically exceed the term of the tenancy agreement that “only 2 people in the contract”, the tenant may still seek the landlord’s permission to house additional guests. This is provided on the tenancy agreement itself.
Here, I find that the landlord has expressly permitted the tenant’s father to reside there when the landlord emailed the tenant on 11 June 2025 to say that “I have allowed your dad to be with you both on regular bases because he is your caregiver. Please make sure only the ones in the contract are allowed to live at the property.”
Finally, I do not consider that the tenant have breached the tenancy agreement when they allowed their father to use the premises “as a bail address” for him.
For those reasons, the remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed because I do not consider that the tenant have breached the tenancy agreement nor the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when they permitted their father to live there.
There is also no evidence of any kind that the tenant or their father had been dealing or using drugs during this tenancy.
In the upshot, none of the landlord’s claims against the tenant are capable of success.
While I have some sympathy in how the landlord have viewed their claims and the tenant’s and the guarantor’s conduct as “deception” that have allegedly been perpetrated against them, the landlord’s claims could not be sustained when viewed and considered from an objective standpoint.
I find that the landlord’s claims were really afterthoughts shaped by events which took place after this tenancy had already ended without any untoward events.
I have no hesitation in dismissing the landlord’s claim in its entirety.
The landlord sought name suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’).
The landlord have been wholly unsuccessful in their claims against the tenant.
Consequently, section 95A(1) of the Act does not apply.
Section 95A(4) of the Act nevertheless allows a party to request that their name and identifying details are suppressed.
However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations, because the interest of the parties may not be in concert with the interests of the public.
First and foremost, I must weigh the public interest.
The Dictionary of New Zealand Law (P Spiller New Zealand Law Dictionary (9th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2019)) defines public interest as “[a]n interest common to the public at large or a significant portion of the public.”
The Office of the Ombudsman broadly equates public interest “to the concept of public good”, which covers “a wide range of values and principles relating to the public good, or what is in the best interests of society”. See Ombudsman’s Office “Guide: Public Interest” (August 2019) ”https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2020- 07/Public_interest_August_2019.pdf”
Generally, the open reporting of justice is in the public interest. See R v Liddell [1995] NZLR 538 [1994] 12 CRNZ 458 (CA) at [464]
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the landlord’s considerations therefore supporting the principle of open reporting.
I consider that it is in the public interest that parties do not try to prosecute unmeritorious claims without proper grounds, which I find to have occurred in this case.
For those reasons, I decline the landlord’s application for name suppression.
I order suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names because they were wholly successful in the defence of the landlord’s claims filed herein. Section 95A(1) of the Act apply.
I do not consider that publication of the tenant’s or guarantor’s names is in the public interest or is justified because of their conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The tenant and their guarantor have acted honourably in this case.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including the guarantor AB.

This tenancy commenced on 6 May 2024 and ended on 5 January 2026.

The landlord seek compensation and exemplary damages against the tenants. The landlord articulated their claims as follows: a) Unlawful act - removing batteries from smoke alarm b) Liability for guests - responsible for father's action as a criminal person - using bail address as [tenancy address], dealing or using drugs. c) Overcrowding – tenants’ father was living in the property as an unauthorised person. The tenant allowed him to live at the property illegally - claiming he was their care giver - but not living at the property. They lied - bail address (for the father) and neighbours have confirmed that.

The landlord as the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The bond was fully and jointly refunded to the tenants at the end of the tenancy.

While the landlord were still able to make a monetary claim against the tenant presently, the fact that the bond has been refunded to the tenants without issue by the landlord is relevant towards the issue of credibility and whether the landlord’s claim overall is meritorious in the circumstances.

On the removal of smoke alarm batteries, the tenant acknowledged having removed the batteries during the tenancy but explained it was because the smoke alarm was beeping intermittently. This is because the battery level was low towards the end of their tenancy.

When the landlord noticed it, the landlord emailed the tenant on 11 January 2026 to commend them for leaving the premises professionally clean. The landlord mentioned that the smoke alarm batteries have been removed and “either you replace it or I have to do it if you can’t”.

The tenant then replied by email on 12 January 2026 to say that they will send J (the new tenant) the money to buy them and replace them as they were not in Auckland at the time. The tenant asked the landlord, “would that work”?

The landlord never replied to that email but duly signed over the entire bond to the tenant. I take that to mean that at the material time, the landlord did not have any issue against the tenant’s removal of the smoke alarm batteries and the landlord have likely replaced the batteries themselves.

I accept the tenant’s explanation that the removal of the smoke alarm batteries was not malicious or intentional. Their offer to pay and ask the new tenant to replace it was not accepted by the landlord.

I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for allegedly tampering with the smoke alarm.

I now address the landlord’s claim that the tenants should not have housed their father at the premises because he is a “criminal person”.

I start by stating that it is not an offence or unlawful to have persons of questionable character live at the property, provided the extra occupant is not in breach of the maximum number of occupants permitted on the tenancy agreement. More so in this case, the person in question was the tenants’ biological father.

While the father’s residency at the premises may technically exceed the term of the tenancy agreement that “only 2 people in the contract”, the tenant may still seek the landlord’s permission to house additional guests. This is provided on the tenancy agreement itself.

Here, I find that the landlord has expressly permitted the tenant’s father to reside there when the landlord emailed the tenant on 11 June 2025 to say that “I have allowed your dad to be with you both on regular bases because he is your caregiver. Please make sure only the ones in the contract are allowed to live at the property.”

Finally, I do not consider that the tenant have breached the tenancy agreement when they allowed their father to use the premises “as a bail address” for him.

For those reasons, the remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed because I do not consider that the tenant have breached the tenancy agreement nor the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when they permitted their father to live there.

There is also no evidence of any kind that the tenant or their father had been dealing or using drugs during this tenancy.

In the upshot, none of the landlord’s claims against the tenant are capable of success.

While I have some sympathy in how the landlord have viewed their claims and the tenant’s and the guarantor’s conduct as “deception” that have allegedly been perpetrated against them, the landlord’s claims could not be sustained when viewed and considered from an objective standpoint.

I find that the landlord’s claims were really afterthoughts shaped by events which took place after this tenancy had already ended without any untoward events.

I have no hesitation in dismissing the landlord’s claim in its entirety.

The landlord sought name suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’).

The landlord have been wholly unsuccessful in their claims against the tenant.

Consequently, section 95A(1) of the Act does not apply.

Section 95A(4) of the Act nevertheless allows a party to request that their name and identifying details are suppressed.

However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations, because the interest of the parties may not be in concert with the interests of the public.

First and foremost, I must weigh the public interest.

The Dictionary of New Zealand Law (P Spiller New Zealand Law Dictionary (9th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2019)) defines public interest as “[a]n interest common to the public at large or a significant portion of the public.”

The Office of the Ombudsman broadly equates public interest “to the concept of public good”, which covers “a wide range of values and principles relating to the public good, or what is in the best interests of society”. See Ombudsman’s Office “Guide: Public Interest” (August 2019) ”https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2020- 07/Public_interest_August_2019.pdf”

Generally, the open reporting of justice is in the public interest. See R v Liddell [1995] NZLR 538 [1994] 12 CRNZ 458 (CA) at [464]

Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the landlord’s considerations therefore supporting the principle of open reporting.

I consider that it is in the public interest that parties do not try to prosecute unmeritorious claims without proper grounds, which I find to have occurred in this case.

For those reasons, I decline the landlord’s application for name suppression.

I order suppression of the tenant’s and guarantor’s names because they were wholly successful in the defence of the landlord’s claims filed herein. Section 95A(1) of the Act apply.

I do not consider that publication of the tenant’s or guarantor’s names is in the public interest or is justified because of their conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The tenant and their guarantor have acted honourably in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484916 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484916 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions