What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4828979 about?

This case concerned a smoke alarms dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4828979?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4828979?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4828979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4828979 about?

This case concerned a smoke alarms dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4828979?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4828979?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4828979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4828979 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Ms [ a representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The tenancy in this case commenced on 08 December 2017 and is periodic.

In the interest of both parties, and the public interest, as with any tenancy, there have been regular property inspections.

These inspections have been conducted without issue until on or about May 2023, the date of the last inspection.

At that inspection the landlord noted a change in the demeanour of the tenant and a reluctance to cooperate with the inspection. The landlord understands there to have been a change in the tenant’s personal circumstances. Thereafter, the landlord has made three attempts to conduct inspections, each time giving proper notice. On each occasion, the tenant has offered various excuses denying entry. The landlord states that they need to check the smoke alarms and ensure that the property continues to meet relevant regulations and codes. While a tenant is entitled to defer inspection for good reasons ultimately, they are obliged to allow an inspection to take place.

The landlord seeks an order that the tenant allow a property inspection to be conducted.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2)(b) – (da) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Section 48(2)(e) provides that the landlord may seek an order of the Tribunal that the tenant allows an inspection for one of the purposes set out in section 48(2)(b) – (da) of the Act.

To grant such an order, the Tribunal should be satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. Having heard from the landlord and considered the materials before me, which includes previous notices and a detailed timeline, I am satisfied that such an order should be made.

Accordingly, the Tribunal makes an order that the tenant must allow a property inspection to be conducted by Monday 29 April 2024. The landlord must give at least 48 hours’ notice, and the inspection must take place on a weekday between 9am and 2pm.

The tenant is reminded that failure to allow an inspection, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. Failure to allow an inspection after proper notice may also be grounds on which the landlord can seek to terminate the tenancy.

I am sure that the tenant will want to maintain the tenancy, and I encourage the tenant to comply.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Although the landlord has been wholly successful, they do not seek suppression.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.

While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. The tenant’s conduct regarding the inspections suggests that publishing their name may likely be detrimental to their wellbeing. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.