What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757834 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeff Ennis and Campbell Trotter must pay [The landlord/s] $9.45 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4757834?

BC Fee For The Sprinkler System: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $265.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $642.86 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757834?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9993003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757834 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeff Ennis and Campbell Trotter must pay [The landlord/s] $9.45 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4757834?

BC Fee For The Sprinkler System: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $265.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $642.86 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757834?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9993003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757834 — Smoke alarms

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757834 — net $9.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 September 2023	$642.86	Rent arrears to 29 September 2023
Cleaning and repairs	$265.65	Cleaning and repairs
BC fee for the sprinkler system	$80.50	BC fee for the sprinkler system
Exemplary damages - interference with smoke alarm system	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - interference with smoke alarm system
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9.45

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants agreed they owe the rent.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 (RTA).

I have seen photos and the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

There was a small amount of repair work to be done. It seems most likely to me the damage was careless damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms?

The landlord claims the tenants interfered with the smoke alarms and the sprinkler system in their apartment. 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. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA.

Breaching the 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 RTA.

The landlord had a photo showing a dreamcatcher hanging from a sprinkler in a bedroom. The tenant said this was removed as soon as he was told this could render the sprinkler inoperative. He said he did not interfere with the sprinklers again during the tenancy.

I have photos showing something hanging from the sprinkler in the other bedroom and a sock over the smoke sensor. This tenant said his bedroom was the closest to the kitchen and the smoke alarms went off when he cooked. He said this happened even when he shut his bedroom door. He said the sock helped. He said there was no malicious intention in covering the sensor, and he was not aware he could be putting others at risk. He apologised and said he will not interfere with the smoke sensors or the sprinklers in the future. I find the tenants 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. See section 109(3) RTA.

The tenants said they did not intend to compromise the safety of the other tenants and the building. They said they were responding to an annoyingly sensitive smoke sensor, and they stopped as soon as they were made aware of the safety issues. The landlord said the owner was especially concerned at the risk to the apartment and to others. It is in landlords’ interests that tenancies are safe and there is public interest in fire safety. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the tenants. Other orders

The bond is refunded to the landlord.

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants do not get suppression because they have breached the RTA and there is public interest in their names being published. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757834 — net $9.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 September 2023	$642.86	Rent arrears to 29 September 2023
Cleaning and repairs	$265.65	Cleaning and repairs
BC fee for the sprinkler system	$80.50	BC fee for the sprinkler system
Exemplary damages - interference with smoke alarm system	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - interference with smoke alarm system
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9.45

Order

Jeff Ennis and Campbell Trotter must pay [The landlord/s] $9.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants agreed they owe the rent.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 (RTA).
I have seen photos and the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
There was a small amount of repair work to be done. It seems most likely to me the damage was careless damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms?

The landlord claims the tenants interfered with the smoke alarms and the sprinkler system in their apartment. 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. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms. See section 40(2)(ab) RTA.
Breaching the 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 RTA.
The landlord had a photo showing a dreamcatcher hanging from a sprinkler in a bedroom. The tenant said this was removed as soon as he was told this could render the sprinkler inoperative. He said he did not interfere with the sprinklers again during the tenancy.
I have photos showing something hanging from the sprinkler in the other bedroom and a sock over the smoke sensor. This tenant said his bedroom was the closest to the kitchen and the smoke alarms went off when he cooked. He said this happened even when he shut his bedroom door. He said the sock helped. He said there was no malicious intention in covering the sensor, and he was not aware he could be putting others at risk. He apologised and said he will not interfere with the smoke sensors or the sprinklers in the future. I find the tenants 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenants said they did not intend to compromise the safety of the other tenants and the building. They said they were responding to an annoyingly sensitive smoke sensor, and they stopped as soon as they were made aware of the safety issues. The landlord said the owner was especially concerned at the risk to the apartment and to others. It is in landlords’ interests that tenancies are safe and there is public interest in fire safety. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the tenants. Other orders
The bond is refunded to the landlord.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants do not get suppression because they have breached the RTA and there is public interest in their names being published. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757834 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757834 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages for interfering with the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions