What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4545929 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4545929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4545929?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4545929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9611179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4545929 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4545929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4545929?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4545929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9611179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4545929 — Smoke alarms

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a fire service callout on charged by the Body Corporate.
The tenant denied liability for the smoke alarm activation.
Where a premises is held in stratum estate under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”), the body corporate rules apply to the tenancy pursuant to section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A body corporate can pass on – to a unit owner- the costs of any work rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act of omission, breach of the UTA or Body Corporate operational rule by the unit owner or, relevantly his tenant.
That cost could then be passed to the tenant if it arose from a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
In the present case, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of a fire service callout passed on by the body corporate on the basis that the callout was caused by the tenant using his dryer in the living room rather that the allocated laundry area. The Body Corporate claims that an “unusually strong” gust of wind blew the dust from the dryer into the smoke alarm in one of the bedrooms.
The Body Corporate’s position is that fire callouts caused by activation of alarms in the apartments are the responsibility of the unit owners.
No authority for this position has been provided. It may be contained in the body corporate rules, however these have not been provided to me.
To rely on a breach of the Body Corporate rules by the tenant, the landlord would need to provide those rules.
For the unit owner, and the tenant, to be liable for the costs of the callout under s127, the body corporate would need to demonstrate a “wilful or negligent act or omission”.
There is no evidence – beyond a single comment in the invoice – that the smoke alarm was activated by dust.
There is no evidence that the dryer was the source of the dust. Given the distance of the dryer (in the living room) from the smoke alarm in the bedroom, this seems tenuous.
Further, taking into account what was described as an “unusually strong” gust of wind, it is difficult to see how this was a wilful or negligent act or omission.
That said, the Body Corporate has on charged the cost to the tenant.
In the absence of the body corporate rules, there is no evidence that the tenant has breached those rules.
I have then considered that matter in the context of a claim for damage.
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.
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.
While the activation of the fire alarm is clearly not fair wear and tear, I cannot see how the necessary causal link between operating the dryer in the living room and the activation of a smoke alarm in the bedroom can be made out.
Even if it was able to be proved that the dryer was the source of the dust, in the context of an “unusually strong” gust of wind, I cannot see how this was anything other than an unfortunate accident.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a fire service callout on charged by the Body Corporate.
The tenant denied liability for the smoke alarm activation.
Where a premises is held in stratum estate under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”), the body corporate rules apply to the tenancy pursuant to section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A body corporate can pass on – to a unit owner- the costs of any work rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act of omission, breach of the UTA or Body Corporate operational rule by the unit owner or, relevantly his tenant.
That cost could then be passed to the tenant if it arose from a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
In the present case, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of a fire service callout passed on by the body corporate on the basis that the callout was caused by the tenant using his dryer in the living room rather that the allocated laundry area. The Body Corporate claims that an “unusually strong” gust of wind blew the dust from the dryer into the smoke alarm in one of the bedrooms.
The Body Corporate’s position is that fire callouts caused by activation of alarms in the apartments are the responsibility of the unit owners.
No authority for this position has been provided. It may be contained in the body corporate rules, however these have not been provided to me.
To rely on a breach of the Body Corporate rules by the tenant, the landlord would need to provide those rules.
For the unit owner, and the tenant, to be liable for the costs of the callout under s127, the body corporate would need to demonstrate a “wilful or negligent act or omission”.
There is no evidence – beyond a single comment in the invoice – that the smoke alarm was activated by dust.
There is no evidence that the dryer was the source of the dust. Given the distance of the dryer (in the living room) from the smoke alarm in the bedroom, this seems tenuous.
Further, taking into account what was described as an “unusually strong” gust of wind, it is difficult to see how this was a wilful or negligent act or omission.
That said, the Body Corporate has on charged the cost to the tenant.
In the absence of the body corporate rules, there is no evidence that the tenant has breached those rules.
I have then considered that matter in the context of a claim for damage.
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.
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.
While the activation of the fire alarm is clearly not fair wear and tear, I cannot see how the necessary causal link between operating the dryer in the living room and the activation of a smoke alarm in the bedroom can be made out.
Even if it was able to be proved that the dryer was the source of the dust, in the context of an “unusually strong” gust of wind, I cannot see how this was anything other than an unfortunate accident.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4545929 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4545929 — 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