How much money was awarded in case 4797180?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $252.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797180?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10247368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4797180?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $252.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797180?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10247368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797180 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797180 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797180. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Toilet repair	$252.50	Toilet repair
Exemplary damages - smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Lee-Anne Te Hatu, Nicholas Pomare, Tane Pomare and Crystal Pomare must pay [The landlord/s] $1,272.94 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlord’s application for termination was withdrawn.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenants did not attend.

The landlord’s application claims termination of the tenancy based on the tenants’ failure to comply with breach notices, rent arrears, compensation for damage and exemplary damages for interference with smoke alarms.

The landlord provided three breach notices that it has served on the tenants.

The first dated 28 December 2023 was for removing smoke alarms and several other breaches. The tenants complied with that notice.

The second notice dated 10 January 2024 was for rent arrears.

The third and latest notice dated 22 March 2024 was for removing a smoke alarm upstairs in the premises outside the conservatory that the tenants use as a bedroom.

That notice required the tenants to re-install the smoke alarm and to provide a photograph as evidence that they had done so. The tenants have not provided a photograph or any other evidence of compliance.

The landlords request for a photograph is a sensible way of giving the tenants the opportunity to show that they have complied with the notice without the need for a reinspection. But s56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires the landlord to prove non-compliance with the notice. I don’t think that the Tribunal can find that the tenants have not complied on the basis that they have not provided evidence of compliance. That would be reversing the burden of proof.

In any case, the landlord did not seek termination on that basis.

Rent is now up to date.

I have therefore confirmed that the landlord has withdrawn the claim for termination. 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. (s40(2)(ab) of the Act). 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.

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.

The tenants have removed smoke alarms in the premises more than once. They have removed the smoke alarm in the sleep out which is used as a bedroom, and they have removed a smoke alarm upstairs in the premises outside the conservatory which the tenants use as a bedroom. There is another smoke alarm upstairs that serves another two bedrooms there.

A failure by either landlords or tenants to comply with smoke alarm regulations is taken very seriously by the Tribunal. It would normally have little hesitation in terminating a tenancy where the tenant was repeatedly interfering with smoke alarms. The reason for that is obvious. They are there to protect all occupants of the premises and others who could be affected by a fire and to help to protect the premises.

If this landlord comes back to the Tribunal with an application for termination on the ground that the tenants have interfered with smoke alarms again, and the allegation is proved, it is very likely that the Tribunal will terminate the tenancy. The tenants are urged not to interfere with the smoke alarms for their own safety, the safety of others and if they want to remain living in the premises.

The tenants’ actions have been deliberate and repeated and so an award of exemplary damages is warranted. I take into consideration that there was another smoke alarm upstairs and that the sleep out is not part of the main house. At this stage, an award at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and I have awarded $1,000. If the Tribunal find the tenants have committed this type of unlawful act again, and the landlord claims exemplary damages, it is likely that there will be a substantially higher award. Toilet Damage

The tenants reported damage to a toilet in the premises. The landlord attended and found the toilet cistern hanging off the wall and other associated damage to the toilet.

Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.

The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the damage is likely to have been caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenants or by person on the premises with their consent.

The landlord issued an invoice in the sum of $290.38 including GST for repairing the toilet. The invoice is addressed to the property managers. I find the invoice reasonable in amount and because the landlord is a professional property investor and landlord it is reasonable to make an award based on commercial rates. But the landlord has effectively invoiced themselves and so it is not appropriate to charge or award GST. I have therefore awarded the invoice amount net of GST. Filing Fee

The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797180. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Toilet repair	$252.50	Toilet repair
Exemplary damages - smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Lee-Anne Te Hatu, Nicholas Pomare, Tane Pomare and Crystal Pomare must pay [The landlord/s] $1,272.94 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlord’s application for termination was withdrawn.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenants did not attend.

The landlord provided three breach notices that it has served on the tenants.

The first dated 28 December 2023 was for removing smoke alarms and several other breaches. The tenants complied with that notice.

The second notice dated 10 January 2024 was for rent arrears.

The third and latest notice dated 22 March 2024 was for removing a smoke alarm upstairs in the premises outside the conservatory that the tenants use as a bedroom.

In any case, the landlord did not seek termination on that basis.

Rent is now up to date.

I have therefore confirmed that the landlord has withdrawn the claim for termination. Smoke Alarms

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00.

The tenants reported damage to a toilet in the premises. The landlord attended and found the toilet cistern hanging off the wall and other associated damage to the toilet.

Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.

The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the damage is likely to have been caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenants or by person on the premises with their consent.

The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797180 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797180 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions