What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5475791?

The tribunal order states: Joshua James Kahu Mauheni is to pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5475791?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13591979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5475791?

The tribunal order states: Joshua James Kahu Mauheni is to pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5475791?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13591979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Clinkard Avenue, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475791 — Cleanliness

Order

Joshua James Kahu Mauheni is to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $2,144.80 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount Rent arrears to 23 March 2026$1,031.43 Replace two door handles and broken window latch$140.87 Rekeying, no keys returned$324.50 Cleaning$350.00 Power reconnection fee$70.00 Filing fee$28.00 Exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms$200.00 Total awarded$2,144.80

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove that rent arrears of $1,031.43 were owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s evidence was that very little cleaning had been done. A friend had apparently attended and may have swept and mopped the floors, but the work was not properly completed. There was food matter and dust in the cupboards, the bathroom and toilet areas were unclean, and the skirting boards and windowsills were dusty. The premises were generally grubby.
I am satisfied that the cleaning required was more than ordinary post-tenancy tidying. The amount claimed for cleaning is $350.00, being approximately three hours of cleaning. I find that amount proved and reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant told the property manager he had lost the keys. The landlord was therefore required to rekey the premises. The amount claimed is $324.50. I find that amount proved and reasonable.
The landlord also claims a power reconnection fee of $70.00. I am satisfied this cost was incurred following the end of the tenancy and was reasonably required. The amount is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: two broken door handles and one broken window latch. The landlord’s evidence was that these items were not broken at the start of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount claimed for replacing the two broken door handles and the broken window latch is $140.87. I find that amount proved and reasonable.
I have taken into account 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.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

The Landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 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 $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s evidence was that smoke alarms had been removed or interfered with: one was found in a kitchen drawer and two were found on the kitchen bench at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement made it clear that the tenant was not to touch or interfere with the smoke alarms.
I find that the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms and committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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: s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the interference was intentional. The smoke alarms had not merely failed or become defective. They had been removed from their operative positions and placed in the kitchen drawer and on the kitchen bench. The obligation not to interfere with smoke alarms was clear in the tenancy agreement.
The effect of the unlawful act was serious. Smoke alarms are an important fire- safety feature. Removing or disabling them creates risk to occupants, neighbouring properties, and the landlord’s property.
Having regard to the tenant’s clear intent, the seriousness of this issue, the landlord’s interests, and the public interest in deterring tenants from interfering with smoke alarms, I find it is just to award exemplary damages.
I award exemplary damages of $200.00.
I also award the filing fee as the Landlord has succeeded with its claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475791 — Cleanliness at 68 Clinkard Avenue, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475791 — Cleanliness at 68 Clinkard Avenue, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Property management