What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731191 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for the window is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4731191?

BC Fee For Attending, Checking And R…: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731191?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10008263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731191 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for the window is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4731191?

BC Fee For Attending, Checking And R…: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731191?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10008263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731191 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731191 — net $391.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
BC fee for attending, checking and resetting the fire alarms	$391.00	BC fee for attending, checking and resetting the fire alarms
Net award	$391.00
Bond	$1,065.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$391.00

The claim for the window is dismissed.

[The tenant/s] to pay Comprende Limited As Agent For Terry Spencer $391.00 from the bond, calculated as:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,065.79 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Comprende Limited As Agent For Terry Spencer: $391.00 [The tenant/s]: $674.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims are for the payment of a call out fee following a smoke alarm going off in the apartment, and payment for repairs to a broken window.

Are the tenants responsible for the smoke alarm callout?

About three months into the tenancy the tenants were cooking and they set off the smoke alarm in the apartment, which led to a building evacuation. They said they were using the extractor fan and they opened windows to clear smoke, but the alarm went off and the fire service attended. Months later, the landlord received a bill from the Body Corporate asking for a fee to be paid, and in turn the landlord has claimed this cost from the tenants. The amount the landlord is claiming is the actual cost to the Body Corporate to have the fire safety system in the apartment building working properly.

The tenants did not agree to pay the money because the bill was so late, because they had tried their best on the day to prevent an alarm going off, and because the alarm system in the building was very sensitive.

I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. The tenants managed to cook in their apartment for a number of months before their smoke detector went off, so it seems unlikely the detector was faulty. Even if the system was sensitive, and other people also had problems with it, a fire safety system is a natural consequence of living in a large apartment building. If you set it off someone has to come and check the system. I find the tenants should pay the fee to attend to the alarm.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the window?

There is also a claim for a broken window. 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.

The landlord submitted that the damage was careless because the tenant must have used excessive force to break the window, and that the tenant should have stopped pushing on the glass once it was evident the window frame was stuck. The tenants submitted that she did not use excessive force.

The claim for the window is dismissed. I am not persuaded the damage was careless because: • The frame was very old and not working properly • The tenant’s explanation is reasonable • There was no other damage during the tenancy • It seems most likely to me the breakage was accidental.

No order is made for the filing fee. Both parties have had some success.

Both parties made an application for suppression. I find the tenants are the most successful party because they have successfully defended the larger of the two claims. Suppression is allowed for the tenants. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731191 — net $391.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
BC fee for attending, checking and resetting the fire alarms	$391.00	BC fee for attending, checking and resetting the fire alarms
Net award	$391.00
Bond	$1,065.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$391.00

Order

The claim for the window is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay Comprende Limited As Agent For Terry Spencer $391.00 from the bond, calculated as:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,065.79 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Comprende Limited As Agent For Terry Spencer: $391.00 [The tenant/s]: $674.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims are for the payment of a call out fee following a smoke alarm going off in the apartment, and payment for repairs to a broken window.

Are the tenants responsible for the smoke alarm callout?

About three months into the tenancy the tenants were cooking and they set off the smoke alarm in the apartment, which led to a building evacuation. They said they were using the extractor fan and they opened windows to clear smoke, but the alarm went off and the fire service attended. Months later, the landlord received a bill from the Body Corporate asking for a fee to be paid, and in turn the landlord has claimed this cost from the tenants. The amount the landlord is claiming is the actual cost to the Body Corporate to have the fire safety system in the apartment building working properly.
The tenants did not agree to pay the money because the bill was so late, because they had tried their best on the day to prevent an alarm going off, and because the alarm system in the building was very sensitive.
I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. The tenants managed to cook in their apartment for a number of months before their smoke detector went off, so it seems unlikely the detector was faulty. Even if the system was sensitive, and other people also had problems with it, a fire safety system is a natural consequence of living in a large apartment building. If you set it off someone has to come and check the system. I find the tenants should pay the fee to attend to the alarm.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the window?

There is also a claim for a broken window. 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.
The landlord submitted that the damage was careless because the tenant must have used excessive force to break the window, and that the tenant should have stopped pushing on the glass once it was evident the window frame was stuck. The tenants submitted that she did not use excessive force.
The claim for the window is dismissed. I am not persuaded the damage was careless because: • The frame was very old and not working properly • The tenant’s explanation is reasonable • There was no other damage during the tenancy • It seems most likely to me the breakage was accidental.
No order is made for the filing fee. Both parties have had some success.
Both parties made an application for suppression. I find the tenants are the most successful party because they have successfully defended the larger of the two claims. Suppression is allowed for the tenants. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731191 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731191 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the smoke alarm callout?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the window?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the smoke alarm callout?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the window?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions