What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019328?

The tribunal order states: Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Shaun Baird must pay Talor

How much money was awarded in case 5019328?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Blocked Toilet: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $77.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10946485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019328?

The tribunal order states: Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Shaun Baird must pay Talor

How much money was awarded in case 5019328?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Blocked Toilet: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $77.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10946485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Hewitts Road, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019328 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019328 — net $418.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$500.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: blocked toilet	$304.75		Repairs: blocked toilet
Rubbish removal	$77.05		Rubbish removal
Compensation		$300.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$881.80	$1,300.00
Net award		$418.20
Bond		$1,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$418.20

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019328 — net $418.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$500.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: blocked toilet	$304.75		Repairs: blocked toilet
Rubbish removal	$77.05		Rubbish removal
Compensation		$300.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$881.80	$1,300.00
Net award		$418.20
Bond		$1,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$418.20

Order

Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Shaun Baird must pay Talor Nicol and Brittney Boyd $418.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 (5885008-007) to Talor Nicol and Brittney Boyd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s: a. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). See section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. c. Issuing a retaliatory notice. See section 54 RTA.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) RTA requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. Tenants’ claim: HHS
As explained at the hearing, the HHS do not apply to this tenancy. It started on 18 September 2020. As this date is before 1 July 2021, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS. The tenant’s claims in relation to the property’s state of repair are considered as claims by the tenant that the landlord failed to maintain the property.
The tenants’ claim for the landlord failing to comply with the HHS is dismissed. Tenants’ claim: Failure to maintain
The tenants claimed that the landlord failed to maintain or repair in a reasonable timeframe the following matters: the heat pump, bathroom, roof, the exterior paint, the dishwasher, removal an old gas heater, some window latches, the toilet seat and the curtains required replacement.
Each of these items was considered separately at the hearing.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises”.
The landlord is only required to provide and maintain the premises in a “reasonable” state of repair. The standard is not absolute and is to be assessed objectively. It is also qualified by the age and character of the premises. The standard of repair is not “as new” or perfect. A landlord does not have to improve the tenancy property.
The landlord’s obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a time frame which is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time frame depends on the gravity of the problem and also on the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix the problem.
Section 40(1)(d) RTA requires a tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. The heat pump
The tenant gave evidence that the heat pump operated satisfactorily for about an hour and then moved into a defrost mode and would then either cease to operate or would start up again and blow cold air for about five minutes. The tenants advised that they chose to leave it turned off because of its faulty operation and that they used three oil-filled heaters instead.
The tenants maintained that they had complained about this issue from the start of the tenancy. They could not provide any evidence of complaints except text messages beginning in May 2023. The dating of complaints made by the tenants has not been conclusive because the text messages often do not include the year and neither party was able to determine dates for all the correspondence.
The landlord’s evidence was that the heat pump was installed in September 2019, just prior to the start of the tenancy, and was serviced in 2020 and 2021. Its records confirmed that the services in 2020 and 2021 were initiated by the tenants’ complaint about the unit not functioning correctly.
The tenants complained about the heat pump by text on 7 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor’s invoice of 28 February 2024 recorded that the unit was badly in need of cleaning and that “heat pump works fine now”.
The contractor was contacted by the tenants on 10 May 2024 complaining again that the heat pump was not operating correctly. The contractor visited again on 14 May 2024 and reported that “he couldn’t see the problem and the error code didn’t come up. The tenant has said that a healthy homes compliance person has told her that it is undersized for the space.” The landlord agreed to a quote being obtained for a heat pump that would comply with the HHS. I note that a qualifying heat pump was not required to be installed until 1 July 2025.
The heat pump was one of the issues raised in the tenants’ 14-day notice issued on 5 June 2024, just after the property was listed for sale. The landlord advised that as its contractor had not been able to locate any problem and the property was on the market, the landlord had decided not to replace the heat pump.
The tenants explained that they kept the heat pump turned off so that it did not use power by remaining on standby. This is contradicted by a text from the tenants to the landlord on 7 February 2024 that says, “forgot to say on the phone was wondering if we can get the heat pump sorted before winter as it uses a lot of power and don’t heat the house”.
The tenants noted that the contractors did not run the heat pump for more than a few minutes and so did not observe it malfunctioning after an hour’s operation.
The tenants claimed compensation for the extra power used during the three months of four winters when the tenants used three oil heaters to heat the property. The tenants estimated that this involved additional costs of $250.00 per month or $750.00 per year and a total of $3,000.00. No evidence was submitted to the Tribunal in support of this estimate.
The tenants’ evidence of complaints to the landlord confirms only that the tenants raised issues about the heat pump with the landlord from May last year. There is no evidence other than some texts and the landlord’s records of having the unit serviced to support the tenants’ claim that there have been issues throughout the entire four-year period of the tenancy.
It is difficult to understand why the tenants accepted a non-functioning heat pump during the previous three years without either a history of communications with the landlord during that time or issuing a 14-day notice or making an application to the Tribunal. This is an inordinately long time for there to be no record of complaints about such a significant issue.
As noted, tenants have an obligation to notify landlords of repairs which are required. Landlords cannot be expected to fix issues if they have not received notification. Having despatched a contractor and paid an invoice, a landlord is justified in assuming that the problem has been fixed, unless a tenant repeats their complaint.
The heat pump unit was new at the start of the tenancy and only five years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is not responsible for repairs that its suitably qualified contractors cannot detect. After the landlord’s contractor attended the property and confirmed that there was no issue requiring repair, the onus of proof is on the tenants to prove this was incorrect. The tenants have not done so.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenants have not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to address issues with the heat pump in a timely manner.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. The bathroom
The tenants provided photographic evidence and complained that the bathroom was mouldy and the paint flaking. They explained that there was a moisture issue so that the walls ran with water and the ceiling dripped moisture after the shower had been used. It was accepted that four people used the shower. The tenants confirmed that there was a ventilation fan in the bathroom and that they cleaned it regularly to remove mould.
The tenants wanted the landlord to fit a shower dome and repaint the walls and ceiling.
The landlord’s records show that the bathroom was painted just before the start of the tenancy and repainted in April 2023. The landlord’s records show that the tenant requested the shower dome on 4 April 2023. The landlord approved its installation but because the shower box was not a standard size, the installation was not able to be completed until August 2023.
The landlord maintained that there was no legal requirement for it to install a shower dome and that while there was evidence of some flaking paint in the bathroom, this was usual and not so extensive as to require repainting.
The tenants’ photographic evidence does not reveal anything out of the ordinary. All bathrooms will experience some mould and some paint deterioration. It is to be expected that tenants will need to regularly clean and remove mould, as well as ventilate the bathroom. The tenants did so. The landlord assisted the tenants by installing a ventilation fan and a shower dome but was under no legal obligation to do so.
The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that the landlord has failed in its obligation to maintain the bathroom. The tenants’ claim is dismissed. The roof
The tenants claimed that the roof leaked. They believed that this was the cause of a crack and a buckling in an internal wall which looked damp.
The landlord engaged a plumber to inspect the property who advised that there was “zero chance of crack is due to roof leak”. A builder was to carry out a further inspection but this was cancelled once the decision was made by the landlord to sell the property with vacant possession.
The landlord advised that there was no evidence of a leak on the final inspection of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have not supplied any objective or professional proof of a roof leak and have not persuaded the Tribunal of its existence. The landlord’s contractor’s opinion also indicates the absence of a leak.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenants have not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that there was an issue with the roof that required any further action by the landlord.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed. Painting the exterior
The tenants provided photographic evidence that there were some small patches of the exterior where paint was missing. They believed that the presence of a mould-like stain on the back of a dresser adjacent to one of the areas was evidence that the lack of paint allowed moisture ingress.
The landlord accepted that there were a couple of small areas where paint was lacking. The landlord advised that there was no evidence of water ingress or that these were anything more than a cosmetic issue.
The tenants’ evidence does not persuade the Tribunal that the absence of small patches of paint has caused the house not to be weather tight. The tenants’ claim is dismissed. The dishwasher
The tenants’ evidence - which was accepted by the landlord – was that despite notifying the landlord of the need to repair or replace the dishwasher, they were without a functioning dishwasher for a period of approximately eight months from September 2021 until May 2022.
As indicated at the hearing, the tenants should be compensated for this inconvenience and an appropriate sum is awarded. The old gas heater
The tenants complained that there was an old gas heater in the lounge that was a nuisance and which they had asked the landlord to remove.
The landlord advised that the gas heater had been capped off and professionally decommissioned in May 2018, before the start of the tenancy. At the tenants’ request, it had investigated the cost of removing the heater but decided against it because the cost was not justified. The landlord had the chimney blocked off after it received a 14-day notice from the tenants which referred to this issue. The tenants maintained that this was not done professionally but did not produce any supporting evidence.
The tenants have not indicated which legal requirement the landlord has failed to meet. The fact that the heater was a nuisance does not impose any legal obligation on the landlord to remove it.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed. Window latches
The tenants complained that a part of three window latches had broken so that the windows did not close so completely that there was not a small gap which allowed draughts. Complaints were made by text to the landlord in August and September 2023. One of these referred to complaint having been made at the two last inspections.
The landlord had the catches repaired in December 2023.
This is a lengthy delay in carrying out a simple repair. However, the inconvenience or detriment to the tenant was relatively minor. It has been considered in awarding the other amounts of compensation made to the tenant in this order and no separate amount is ordered. Toilet seat
The tenants complained that the toilet seat was no longer firmly attached to the toilet on 7 February 2024. It was repaired on 4 April 2024.
While this issue was undoubtedly inconvenient and the repair was not carried out in a reasonable time frame, it is not appropriate to award a separate amount in compensation. It has been included in the compensation awarded. Curtains
The tenants complained that the curtains in the property were inadequate because they were so thin and “falling apart”. They did not provide any supporting evidence.
In the absence of any supporting evidence, the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages: failure to maintain
Breaching the landlord’s obligation to maintain the property is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has failed to maintain the property by not repairing the dishwasher, the window latches and the toilet seat in a reasonable time frame. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages are different from ordinary damages where the object is generally to compensate. The object of exemplary damages is to “punish and deter”.
It is first necessary to determine whether the landlord intended to fail to repair the dishwasher, the latches and the toilet seat.
It is clear that the dishwasher replacement “fell between the cracks” and was not followed up by the landlord. Once the landlord realised the issue had not been resolved and the dishwasher replaced, the property manager replaced the dishwasher immediately. However, the tenant was without a dishwasher for several months.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s failure to repair the dishwasher was intentional, although an act of omission, because it did not take steps or have in place an adequate process to ensure that such a failure did not happen.
Similarly, there were unexplained delays in the repair of the window latches and the toilet seat. While relatively minor, they are clearly repairs for which the landlord was responsible and they were not repaired in a reasonable time frame.
It is appropriate that exemplary damages be awarded to the tenants because: a. The delays in carrying out repairs have been unexplained and, in the case of the dishwasher, without any excuse but inadvertence. b. The impact on the tenants has been more than minor. There is a cumulative impact in the tenants repeatedly having to ask for repairs and suffering ongoing frustration and inconvenience. c. It is in the public interest that landlords be punished financially if they are not thorough and prompt in investigating and completing repairs. Tenants are in a weak position and are often reluctant to complain repeatedly to landlords. However, tenants should not be punished by poor service for being polite and not complaining aggressively or constantly. Landlords need to have systems in place so that repair jobs are not overlooked and tenants left waiting indefinitely.
This is not a situation where the landlord consistently refused or failed to carry out maintenance. The landlord’s maintenance records show that it did respond promptly to several other requests by the tenants and did undertake work not legally required, such as the installation of the shower dome, ventilation in the bathroom and the replacement of curtains. Rather, this is a situation where the landlord overlooked the repair of the dishwasher and was slow to repair two other, relatively minor matters.
Having considered these factors, it is appropriate to award the tenants a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. Retaliatory notice
On 17 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 15 October 2024. The tenancy ended on 5 September 2024. The tenants claim the notice was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that: a. The landlord decided to sell the property in May 2024. b. The landlord met with the tenants on 21 May 2024 to discuss the process and to arrange a time for a market appraisal and viewing times. c. The market appraisal was completed on 31 May 2024. d. An agent was appointed from a firm different to that of the property manager. e. It was intended to sell the property with the tenancy still in place. f. An open home was held on 30 May 2024. g. The landlord decided to withdraw the property from the market on the advice of its agent because of difficulties in marketing the property with the tenants living there. h. The property was withdrawn from the market on 17 July 2024 and the tenants were sent a 90-day termination letter pursuant to section 51(2)(a) RTA. i. The landlord has purchased another property and wishes to realise the equity in this property. j. The property is currently listed and advertised for sale.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. They were compliant with the real estate agent’s requests for viewings, except on one occasion which was late in the day and on short notice. b. They gave the landlord a 14-day notice on 5 June 2024. When no response was received, the tenants filed their application with the Tribunal on 21 June 2024. c. The landlord sent them the termination notice on 17 July 2024. d. They knew of the sale and understood that they would remain in the property. They believe the landlord was motivated to issue the termination notice because the tenants had issued a 14-day notice and had made an application to the Tribunal.
In determining whether the landlord’s notice is retaliatory, there are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
The essential aspect of a retaliatory notice is that it is issued in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint. Chief Executive MBIE v Hau [2021] NZTT 4315620.
In this case, the termination notice complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA and the tenants have made their application within 28 days of the notice being given.
The tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was partly or wholly motivated by the tenants asserting their rights under the RTA. It is proven that the tenants were asserting their rights under the RTA: they had issued a 14-day notice and had made an application to the Tribunal. Some have been found to be without any evidential or legal basis such as the complaints about the roof, the exterior painting, the curtains and the old gas heater. Some have been determined in the tenant’s favour.
The notice to terminate was issued some four weeks after the tenants filed their application and six weeks after they gave their 14-day notice. There is therefore a degree of proximity between the tenants’ claims and the notice to terminate.
However, the landlord’s intention to sell was genuine as evidenced by the property now being back on the market. The landlord’s intention to sell pre- dated either the tenants’ notice or their application to the Tribunal being filed. The Tribunal accepts that the landlord withdrew the property from sale and issued its termination notice on the advice of its agent for commercial reasons which were not unreasonable. It can be difficult to effectively market a property with tenants living in the property. The landlord wanted a sale and it is the landlord’s decision whether this will be best achieved with or without tenants.
The tenants have not persuaded the Tribunal that the landlords were motivated to sell the property with vacant possession by the tenants asserting their rights under the RTA. The decision made was a commercial one to obtain a sale of the house on the best terms.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed. The landlord’s claim for rent
The tenancy ended on 5 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants had no evidence with which to dispute the landlord’s records.
The amount ordered is proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided some photographic evidence that the sleepout was not left reasonably clean and tidy, that there was a very small amount of rubbish and discarded items left at the property and that there were some oil marks on the driveway.
The tenants gave evidence accepted by the landlord that the tenants were not allowed to use the sleepout, except for doing laundry. The tenants did not therefore have any responsibility for cleaning the toilet and other items in the sleepout that were expressly excluded from the tenancy. They did not form part of the premises.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. g. A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
The photographic evidence did not establish that the tenants had not left the house reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The tenants accepted that the rubbish was left behind by them. The amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded to the landlord.
The tenants provided photographic evidence of the driveway at the end of the tenancy and confirmed that they had done their best to remove oil marks and believed that the remaining marks constituted fair wear and tear.
A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. The case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) provides a useful summary of the law: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The photographic evidence does not disclose that the marking exceeded what would be reasonable due to fair wear and tear. The landlord did not point to this issue being raised at any time during the routine inspections over a four-year tenancy. It was presumably therefore accepted as fair wear and tear until the end of the tenancy. The landlords may well have chosen to steam-clean the driveway as part of their preparation of the property for sale. The landlord’s claim for the steam-cleaning of the driveway is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for missing light bulbs and smoke alarms. The landlord did not produce evidence of what was in place at the start of the tenancy, nor did the landlord produce receipts for the purchase of these items.
The tenants pointed to a smoke alarm that was not affixed to the ceiling in one photograph and noted that there were never smoke alarms in all the ceiling brackets.
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has not persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the replacement of smoke alarms or light bulbs.
The tenant accepted liability for a plumbing invoice raised and issued in July 2023 but not pursue by the landlord until it filed its application. This sum is awarded to the landlord. Filing fees and Suppression
As both parties have had only partial success in their applications, it is appropriate that they each meet their own filing fees and that there be no suppression of the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019328 — Exemplary damages at 39 Hewitts Road, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019328 — Exemplary damages at 39 Hewitts Road, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions