What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776909?

The tribunal order states: Nykia Maree Hadessah AKA Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel must pay N W

How much money was awarded in case 4776909?

Care Of Dog: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,333.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $22.61 awarded to landlord; Tip Fees: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776909?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10716389-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776909?

The tribunal order states: Nykia Maree Hadessah AKA Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel must pay N W

How much money was awarded in case 4776909?

Care Of Dog: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,333.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $22.61 awarded to landlord; Tip Fees: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776909?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10716389-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Bridge Street, Eketahuna, Tararua 4900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776909 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

35 Bridge Street, Eketahuna, Tararua 4900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776909 — Smoke alarms | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776909 — net $2,860.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$500.00	Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants	$333.00	Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants
Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms	$1,333.00	Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms
Care of dog	$200.00	Care of dog
Eviction cost	$200.00	Eviction cost
Cleaning	$1,150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$172.50	Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$495.00	Curtain replacement
Cupboard replacement	$185.40	Cupboard replacement
Smoke alarm replacement	$22.61	Smoke alarm replacement
Key replacement	$39.00	Key replacement
Tip fees	$24.00	Tip fees
Rubbish bin replacement	$50.00	Rubbish bin replacement
Painting and wall repairs	$115.00	Painting and wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,860.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,860.39

Claims and awards for application 4776909 — net $2,860.39 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants

Amount: $333.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants

Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms

Amount: $1,333.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms

Care of dog

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Care of dog

Eviction cost

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Eviction cost

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Nykia Maree Hadessah AKA Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel must pay N W Limited $2,860.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Exemplary damages - Failure to quit$500.00 Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants$333.00 Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms$1,333.00 Care of dog$200.00 Eviction cost$200.00 Cleaning$1,150.00 Rubbish removal$172.50 Curtain replacement$495.00 Cupboard replacement$185.40 Smoke alarm replacement$22.61 Key replacement$39.00 Tip fees$24.00 Rubbish bin replacement$50.00 Painting and wall repairs$115.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,839.95 Minus bond-$1,979.56 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,860.39
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,979.56 (5577159-009) to N W Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2023. The landlord is N W Limited, and the sole tenant is Nykia Hadessah, although as discussed below the landlord considers that to be an incorrect name.
The tenancy was terminated by notice of the landlord on the basis that the premises were to be put on the market. The landlord applied for a possession order which was granted by the Tribunal on 6 December 2023. The landlord was granted immediate possession of the tenancy.
When the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord applied for an eviction via the bailiffs, and that proceeded on 18 December 2023.
The landlord now brings to the Tribunal a range of claims which I will consider individually below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, 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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Tenancy agreement with false name

The landlord’s position is that the name given by the tenant for the tenancy agreement, including the driver’s license she provided, was false. In support of that claim, the landlord has provided a communication from the Eketahuna Police confirming that the tenant’s correct name is Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel.
As I explained to the landlord today, while it may well be that the details given by the tenant were false, there is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act which confirms that such a situation would be an unlawful act. While the landlord may have some recourse within the criminal justice system, this is not a matter falling within the RTA.
Even if that were not the case, in order to be granted compensation, the landlord would need to establish a loss, and as Mr Haines has accepted, he has not suffered any loss here.
For those reasons, this claim must be dismissed. Failure to quit
The landlord’s position is that the tenant failed to leave the premises following the termination of the tenancy, and in fact even after the tenant had been evicted, she returned to the premises removing goods.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and this includes at sub-subsection (e) that on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant quit the premises, remove all the goods, and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Failing to quit the premises is declared an unlawful act (see section 40(3A)(a), meaning that exemplary damages could be ordered.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of the obligation to quit, is $1,500.00
Taking the section 109 factors into consideration, I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider the tenants failure to leave the premises as she was required to do, was likely to be intentional. The tenant did not attend the earlier Tribunal hearing around the possession order, so has presented no basis for declining to move out as she was required to do. To that extent I consider the breach is intentional. The effect of the breach is that the landlord has been denied lawful possession of the premises. There are strong interests for landlords and the public generally, that when tenancies end, the tenant complies with their obligations under section 40. It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages as noted is $1,500.00. I consider an order at 1/3rd of the maximum to be reasonable, I therefore order exemplary damages of $500.00 to be paid by the tenant to the landlord. Over crowding
The landlord states that prior to the eviction, he undertook a house inspection and saw indications there were others living in the premises, and the tenant confirmed that others were living there with her.
The tenancy agreement records the maximum number of occupants in the tenancy is 2 (the tenant and her child).
Section 40(3) which again relates to the tenant’s responsibilities, confirms that: (3) Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence that there were more than two people living in the Tenancy, which would be a breach of section 40(3) as above.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of the maximum occupants provision is $1,000.00
Again I have no reason to consider that the breach was not intentional on the part of the tenant. The effect for the landlord is that the premises had more occupants than the landlord had contracted with the tenant for, and there would be a reasonable interest for landlords and tenants to be able to agree on the maximum number of occupants, there is no doubt that affects the level of rent charged generally. It would be just to make an order also taking into consideration the public interest in the matter.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can see no reason why a further order at one-third of the maximum would not be reasonable. I therefore order the tenant to pay the landlord $333.00 exemplary damages for this breach. Dog on premises
The landlord has claimed for the tenant having a dog on the premises, which is a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord has provided a photograph showing the dog, and disappointingly advised that the dog was abandoned on the premises at the end of the tenancy and he needed to care and rehome the dog.
I consider it would be reasonable to award compensation to the landlord, because I would accept that caring for the dog incurred some level of cost, including the landlord’s time in finding a new home for the dog.
It is of course difficult to quantify what that cost (loss) would be, but consider that an order of $200.00 would be fair and that is ordered. Bailiff costs
The landlord claims the $200 fee charged by the Bailiff for the eviction. That is a cost incurred from a breach on the part of the tenant, so is ordered to be paid to the landlord. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord referred to photographs which showed extensive rubbish on the tenancy after possession was returned to the landlord. The landlord needed to remove that rubbish, which included taking a trailer load of rubbish to the tip, and burning some other rubbish. The rubbish included car parts, and in fact the tenant left a motor vehicle in the carport. That was removed by the council ultimately, but needed the landlords time to work through that process.
The landlord stated that there was spraypainted graffiti on the concrete floor in the house, and he needed to waterblast the floor to get it off. Further there were oil stains on the concrete inside the house, that also needed water blasting. The landlord produced a photograph showing a motorcycle inside the house (in the lounge it appears).
The landlord has claimed for 20 hours work to clean the inside of the house at $1,150.00, and three hours work for removing rubbish at $172.50. These amounts are established and ordered in full. Missing curtain
The landlord seeks compensation for a missing curtain on the bay window. that was around 12-18 months old at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost for this was $495.00.
I accept that the curtains were present during the tenancy, there are photographs supporting that, but that they were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The law is clear, that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all chattels provided by the landlord.
Given the age of the curtains, it is reasonable to order the full replacement cost, which is $495.00. Missing cupboard
The landlord states there was a cupboard on the premises. This cupboard is shown on a photograph on the day of the eviction, but the landlord states this was subsequently removed. The landlord seeks costs to replace the cupboard of $127.90 and time to source the replacement at $57.50. This is ordered in full. Missing smoke alarm
The landlord says there were working smoke alarms in the premises at the start of the tenancy, however these were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the unit and exemplary damages.
I accept that the landlord provided a smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy, and that it was missing at the end of the tenancy. Photographs show a bracket only on the ceiling.
The replacement cost for the alarm was $22.61, this is ordered in full.
In terms of exemplary damages, section 40 requires that the tenant “comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A, and further that the tenant shall not: cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; or
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to comply with her obligations including interfering with a means of escape from fire in breach of section 40(2)(ab), which is also deemed an unlawful act.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a tenant interfering with the means of escape from fire, is $4,000.00. This is high, but reflects the overwhelming importance that smoke alarms have in saving lives.
I have no reason to believe that the smoke alarm was not removed intentionally. There are very high interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that smoke alarms are working and not interfered with. It would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
There are no aggravating or mitigating factors that I can see in relation to this claim, and therefore, I conclude that an order at 1/3 rd of the maximum would be indicated, and that is ordered. Key replacement
The landlord says that the keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord paid $39.00. This is ordered. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must return to the landlord all keys provided and will be liable for the replacement costs if they don’t. Tip fees
The landlord claims tip fees of $24.00. This is associated with the rubbish removal claim and is ordered in full. Council rubbish bin
There was council rubbish bin present on the premises at the start of the tenancy but missing when the premises were returned. The landlord believes he paid $75.00 for the replacement, but given he cannot locate a receipt is claiming $50.00.
Again the tenant must return all chattels which includes rubbish bins. I accept the landlord incurred the cost for a placement, and I will accept in the absence of a receipt that $50.00 is reasonable compensation for that. Painting and wall repair
The landlord has claimed $115.00 to prepare walls and shelving for painting. The landlord states there was general damage to the walls and shelves including nail holes that needed repainting. The landlord has claimed three hours work.
Based on the photographs provided, I find this claim is established. The work was needed either because the premises were not returned reasonably clean, or in the alternative because it relates to damage beyond fair wear and tear that would be careless or intentional damage.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776909 — net $2,860.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$500.00	Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants	$333.00	Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants
Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms	$1,333.00	Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms
Care of dog	$200.00	Care of dog
Eviction cost	$200.00	Eviction cost
Cleaning	$1,150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$172.50	Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$495.00	Curtain replacement
Cupboard replacement	$185.40	Cupboard replacement
Smoke alarm replacement	$22.61	Smoke alarm replacement
Key replacement	$39.00	Key replacement
Tip fees	$24.00	Tip fees
Rubbish bin replacement	$50.00	Rubbish bin replacement
Painting and wall repairs	$115.00	Painting and wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,860.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,860.39

Claims and awards for application 4776909 — net $2,860.39 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Failure to quit

Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants

Amount: $333.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants

Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms

Amount: $1,333.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms

Care of dog

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Care of dog

Eviction cost

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Eviction cost

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Nykia Maree Hadessah AKA Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel must pay N W Limited $2,860.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Exemplary damages - Failure to quit$500.00 Exemplary damages - Maximum occupants$333.00 Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms$1,333.00 Care of dog$200.00 Eviction cost$200.00 Cleaning$1,150.00 Rubbish removal$172.50 Curtain replacement$495.00 Cupboard replacement$185.40 Smoke alarm replacement$22.61 Key replacement$39.00 Tip fees$24.00 Rubbish bin replacement$50.00 Painting and wall repairs$115.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,839.95 Minus bond-$1,979.56 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,860.39
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,979.56 (5577159-009) to N W Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2023. The landlord is N W Limited, and the sole tenant is Nykia Hadessah, although as discussed below the landlord considers that to be an incorrect name.
The tenancy was terminated by notice of the landlord on the basis that the premises were to be put on the market. The landlord applied for a possession order which was granted by the Tribunal on 6 December 2023. The landlord was granted immediate possession of the tenancy.
When the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord applied for an eviction via the bailiffs, and that proceeded on 18 December 2023.
The landlord now brings to the Tribunal a range of claims which I will consider individually below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 unlikely, 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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Tenancy agreement with false name

The landlord’s position is that the name given by the tenant for the tenancy agreement, including the driver’s license she provided, was false. In support of that claim, the landlord has provided a communication from the Eketahuna Police confirming that the tenant’s correct name is Nykia Hadessah Van Der Wiel.
As I explained to the landlord today, while it may well be that the details given by the tenant were false, there is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act which confirms that such a situation would be an unlawful act. While the landlord may have some recourse within the criminal justice system, this is not a matter falling within the RTA.
Even if that were not the case, in order to be granted compensation, the landlord would need to establish a loss, and as Mr Haines has accepted, he has not suffered any loss here.
For those reasons, this claim must be dismissed. Failure to quit
The landlord’s position is that the tenant failed to leave the premises following the termination of the tenancy, and in fact even after the tenant had been evicted, she returned to the premises removing goods.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and this includes at sub-subsection (e) that on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant quit the premises, remove all the goods, and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Failing to quit the premises is declared an unlawful act (see section 40(3A)(a), meaning that exemplary damages could be ordered.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of the obligation to quit, is $1,500.00
Taking the section 109 factors into consideration, I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider the tenants failure to leave the premises as she was required to do, was likely to be intentional. The tenant did not attend the earlier Tribunal hearing around the possession order, so has presented no basis for declining to move out as she was required to do. To that extent I consider the breach is intentional. The effect of the breach is that the landlord has been denied lawful possession of the premises. There are strong interests for landlords and the public generally, that when tenancies end, the tenant complies with their obligations under section 40. It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages as noted is $1,500.00. I consider an order at 1/3rd of the maximum to be reasonable, I therefore order exemplary damages of $500.00 to be paid by the tenant to the landlord. Over crowding
The landlord states that prior to the eviction, he undertook a house inspection and saw indications there were others living in the premises, and the tenant confirmed that others were living there with her.
The tenancy agreement records the maximum number of occupants in the tenancy is 2 (the tenant and her child).
Section 40(3) which again relates to the tenant’s responsibilities, confirms that: (3) Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence that there were more than two people living in the Tenancy, which would be a breach of section 40(3) as above.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of the maximum occupants provision is $1,000.00
Again I have no reason to consider that the breach was not intentional on the part of the tenant. The effect for the landlord is that the premises had more occupants than the landlord had contracted with the tenant for, and there would be a reasonable interest for landlords and tenants to be able to agree on the maximum number of occupants, there is no doubt that affects the level of rent charged generally. It would be just to make an order also taking into consideration the public interest in the matter.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can see no reason why a further order at one-third of the maximum would not be reasonable. I therefore order the tenant to pay the landlord $333.00 exemplary damages for this breach. Dog on premises
The landlord has claimed for the tenant having a dog on the premises, which is a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord has provided a photograph showing the dog, and disappointingly advised that the dog was abandoned on the premises at the end of the tenancy and he needed to care and rehome the dog.
I consider it would be reasonable to award compensation to the landlord, because I would accept that caring for the dog incurred some level of cost, including the landlord’s time in finding a new home for the dog.
It is of course difficult to quantify what that cost (loss) would be, but consider that an order of $200.00 would be fair and that is ordered. Bailiff costs
The landlord claims the $200 fee charged by the Bailiff for the eviction. That is a cost incurred from a breach on the part of the tenant, so is ordered to be paid to the landlord. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord referred to photographs which showed extensive rubbish on the tenancy after possession was returned to the landlord. The landlord needed to remove that rubbish, which included taking a trailer load of rubbish to the tip, and burning some other rubbish. The rubbish included car parts, and in fact the tenant left a motor vehicle in the carport. That was removed by the council ultimately, but needed the landlords time to work through that process.
The landlord stated that there was spraypainted graffiti on the concrete floor in the house, and he needed to waterblast the floor to get it off. Further there were oil stains on the concrete inside the house, that also needed water blasting. The landlord produced a photograph showing a motorcycle inside the house (in the lounge it appears).
The landlord has claimed for 20 hours work to clean the inside of the house at $1,150.00, and three hours work for removing rubbish at $172.50. These amounts are established and ordered in full. Missing curtain
The landlord seeks compensation for a missing curtain on the bay window. that was around 12-18 months old at the start of the tenancy. The replacement cost for this was $495.00.
I accept that the curtains were present during the tenancy, there are photographs supporting that, but that they were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The law is clear, that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all chattels provided by the landlord.
Given the age of the curtains, it is reasonable to order the full replacement cost, which is $495.00. Missing cupboard
The landlord states there was a cupboard on the premises. This cupboard is shown on a photograph on the day of the eviction, but the landlord states this was subsequently removed. The landlord seeks costs to replace the cupboard of $127.90 and time to source the replacement at $57.50. This is ordered in full. Missing smoke alarm
The landlord says there were working smoke alarms in the premises at the start of the tenancy, however these were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the unit and exemplary damages.
I accept that the landlord provided a smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy, and that it was missing at the end of the tenancy. Photographs show a bracket only on the ceiling.
The replacement cost for the alarm was $22.61, this is ordered in full.
In terms of exemplary damages, section 40 requires that the tenant “comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A, and further that the tenant shall not: cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; or
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to comply with her obligations including interfering with a means of escape from fire in breach of section 40(2)(ab), which is also deemed an unlawful act.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a tenant interfering with the means of escape from fire, is $4,000.00. This is high, but reflects the overwhelming importance that smoke alarms have in saving lives.
I have no reason to believe that the smoke alarm was not removed intentionally. There are very high interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that smoke alarms are working and not interfered with. It would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
There are no aggravating or mitigating factors that I can see in relation to this claim, and therefore, I conclude that an order at 1/3 rd of the maximum would be indicated, and that is ordered. Key replacement
The landlord says that the keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord paid $39.00. This is ordered. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must return to the landlord all keys provided and will be liable for the replacement costs if they don’t. Tip fees
The landlord claims tip fees of $24.00. This is associated with the rubbish removal claim and is ordered in full. Council rubbish bin
There was council rubbish bin present on the premises at the start of the tenancy but missing when the premises were returned. The landlord believes he paid $75.00 for the replacement, but given he cannot locate a receipt is claiming $50.00.
Again the tenant must return all chattels which includes rubbish bins. I accept the landlord incurred the cost for a placement, and I will accept in the absence of a receipt that $50.00 is reasonable compensation for that. Painting and wall repair
The landlord has claimed $115.00 to prepare walls and shelving for painting. The landlord states there was general damage to the walls and shelves including nail holes that needed repainting. The landlord has claimed three hours work.
Based on the photographs provided, I find this claim is established. The work was needed either because the premises were not returned reasonably clean, or in the alternative because it relates to damage beyond fair wear and tear that would be careless or intentional damage.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776909 — Smoke alarms at 35 Bridge Street, Eketahuna, Tararua 4900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776909 — Smoke alarms at 35 Bridge Street, Eketahuna, Tararua 4900

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions