What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884401 about?

The tribunal order states: DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX

How much money was awarded in case 4884401?

Cleaning: $284.01 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $184.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $53.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $441.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $83.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $98.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884401?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10736813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884401 about?

The tribunal order states: DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX

How much money was awarded in case 4884401?

Cleaning: $284.01 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $184.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $53.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $441.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $83.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $98.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884401?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10736813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4884401 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884401 — net $1,411.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2023	$83.14	Rent arrears to 31/12/2023
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$135.00	Lock/key replacement as agreed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 48844012 Replacement wheelie bin & br	$35.49	__________________________________________________________________________________ 48844012 Replacement wheelie bin & br
Repairs to dent in wall	$75.00	Repairs to dent in wall
Replacement chattels	$441.75	Replacement chattels
Carpet Cleaning	$284.01	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$184.69	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$98.70	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$53.05	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.27
Bond	$2,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.27

Order

DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN to pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $269.94 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application by the tenants for compensation of $1,000.00 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,328.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,411.27 DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN: $916.73

Reasons

The landlord and all the tenants attended the hearing.
The tenants sought compensation of $1,000.00 for replacement of their possessions and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/2023 at $582.00 rent per week. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31/12/2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agreed they owed one days rent.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,216.44 as follows: a. $4.49 for a broken broom b. $135.00 for changing the locks and replacement keys c. $441.75 for replacement of a desk, office chair, lowboy, wheelie bin, two clothes racks, two dining chairs and a mopomatic. d. $53.05 for replacement light bulbs and labour e. $284.01 carpet cleaning f. $98.70 rubbish removal g. $184.69 cleaning and electricity costs.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, extensive photographs and emails between the parties, and a copy of the entry inspection report.
The tenants agreed with the claims for the lock change and key replacement, and replacement of the wheelie bin and broom.
Awards have been made for the agreed claims.
In response to the landlord’s claim the tenants also provided photographs.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and the carpets needed cleaning due to water stains.
The tenants did not return the keys.
I am satisfied the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy; a desk, office chair, lowboy, two clothes racks and two dining chairs.
However, the claim for replacement of the mopomatic fails because I am persuaded the tenants had no idea what this appliance was or, despite its inclusion in the chattels list, that there was one for use in the premises.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 sought compensation of $330.19 as follows: a. $255.19 for repairs to a downpipe b. $75 for repair of a dent in a bedroom wall.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photograsphs of the damage and the property inspection report of 9/2/2023.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested the dent was in the bedroom wall at the beginning of the tenancy and they knew nothing about the damage to the downpipe.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
I am persuaded that the damage to the bedroom wall was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The photograph clearly shows damage to the wall, which was not mentioned in the original inspection report.
However, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage to the downpipe was caused during the tenancy.
There is no evidence to show the state of the downpipe before the tenancy began and the tenants submitted, they knew nothing about the damage.
The claim for the repair to the downpipe fails, but an award is made for the repair to the wall.

Did the tenants interfere with the fire alarm?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenants have removed or interfered with the smoke alarm in the lounge room by taking it down from the ceiling.
The landlord wanted exemplary damages for the removal.
In response, the tenants agreed they had removed the smoke alarm because it was close to the kitchen and kept “going off” when they were cooking.
The tenants thought it was okay to remove the alarm because there was another alarm in the upstairs area of the flat.
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. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the tenants committed an unlawful act by removing the smoke alarm. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord comply with her obligations?

DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, and failing to fix the three broken windows in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and having a heat pump that only blew cold air.
In response, the landlord disputed that the premises were not clean and pointed out that the tenants had not previously complained about this issue and had signed the property inspection condition report after they moved in.
Further the landlord provided a copy of the carpet cleaning invoice from 1/2/2023 when the carpets were cleaned.
The landlord submitted that she was unable to gain access to the premises to have the windows fixed. This was because of the possessions stored in the property at the end of 2022, without her consent, which meant tradespeople did not have enough clear space to undertake the repair work.
When the possessions were removed the landlord submitted that the work was completed within a month.
The landlord suggested the tenants had not told her about the defective heat pump and the tenants confirmed this was the case.
Although agreeing that they left possessions in the premises the tenants did not believe this blocked access.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The tenants’ photographs have failed to persuade me that the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
Further I accept the evidence of the landlord that access was blocked by the tenants’ possessions and the windows were unable to be repaired in a reasonable timeframe.
Under section 40(1)(d) tenants have a responsibility to notify a landlord of any damage or need for repairs.
The fact that the tenants failed to notify the landlord about the need to repair the heat pump means that the landlord is not responsible for the defective heat pump repair until she became aware of the situation, in this case after the tenancy ended. Did the landlord correctly dispose of the tenants’ goods?
The tenants wanted compensation of $1,000.00 for the landlord having disposed of a mattress, golf set, chilly bin and blankets left at the premises after the end of the tenancy.
While agreeing they did not have the consent of the landlord to store the possessions at the premises, they “assumed” it would be okay to do so.
In response the landlord was adamant that she did not agree with the tenants leaving their possessions at the premises after the tenancy ended, any more than she had consented to them storing their possessions at the premises before the tenancy began.
Further the landlord submitted that as the tenants had not removed the possessions after being given notice to do so, she disposed of the items because she believed they were of little or no value.
Section 62 provides for what happens when tenants leave possessions at premises after the end of the tenancy.
The landlord must take all reasonable steps to contact the tenant and agree on a period within which the goods can be collected.
If contact is unable to be made or agreement reached the landlord must secure the possessions in safe storage and make all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of the goods.
After taking personal documents to the nearest Police station, if the landlord considers the goods are of no value, they may dispose of them as the landlord sees fit.
I find the landlord has not breached the provisions of section 62.
The landlord attempted to contact the tenants about removal of the goods and when this was unsuccessful made enquiries about the value of the possessions, which she believed was minimal.
The tenants provided no objective evidence to support the value of any of the goods.
The claim for compensation fails.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the tenants committed an unlawful act by removing the smoke alarm, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenants.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
Although I consider the tenants intentionally removed the smoke alarm, I am not persuaded they did this with intent to breach the law.
Rather it is clear that the tenants were unaware of why the legislation provides for smoke alarms and the importance of these as devices to save lives in the event of fire.
I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is just and equitable in the circumstances.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because she was largely successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884401 — net $1,411.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2023	$83.14	Rent arrears to 31/12/2023
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$135.00	Lock/key replacement as agreed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 48844012 Replacement wheelie bin & br	$35.49	__________________________________________________________________________________ 48844012 Replacement wheelie bin & br
Repairs to dent in wall	$75.00	Repairs to dent in wall
Replacement chattels	$441.75	Replacement chattels
Carpet Cleaning	$284.01	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$184.69	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$98.70	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$53.05	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.27
Bond	$2,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.27

Order

DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN to pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $269.94 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application by the tenants for compensation of $1,000.00 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,328.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,411.27 DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN: $916.73

Reasons

The landlord and all the tenants attended the hearing.
The tenants sought compensation of $1,000.00 for replacement of their possessions and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/2023 at $582.00 rent per week. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31/12/2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agreed they owed one days rent.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,216.44 as follows: a. $4.49 for a broken broom b. $135.00 for changing the locks and replacement keys c. $441.75 for replacement of a desk, office chair, lowboy, wheelie bin, two clothes racks, two dining chairs and a mopomatic. d. $53.05 for replacement light bulbs and labour e. $284.01 carpet cleaning f. $98.70 rubbish removal g. $184.69 cleaning and electricity costs.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, extensive photographs and emails between the parties, and a copy of the entry inspection report.
The tenants agreed with the claims for the lock change and key replacement, and replacement of the wheelie bin and broom.
Awards have been made for the agreed claims.
In response to the landlord’s claim the tenants also provided photographs.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and the carpets needed cleaning due to water stains.
The tenants did not return the keys.
I am satisfied the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy; a desk, office chair, lowboy, two clothes racks and two dining chairs.
However, the claim for replacement of the mopomatic fails because I am persuaded the tenants had no idea what this appliance was or, despite its inclusion in the chattels list, that there was one for use in the premises.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 sought compensation of $330.19 as follows: a. $255.19 for repairs to a downpipe b. $75 for repair of a dent in a bedroom wall.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photograsphs of the damage and the property inspection report of 9/2/2023.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested the dent was in the bedroom wall at the beginning of the tenancy and they knew nothing about the damage to the downpipe.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
I am persuaded that the damage to the bedroom wall was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The photograph clearly shows damage to the wall, which was not mentioned in the original inspection report.
However, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage to the downpipe was caused during the tenancy.
There is no evidence to show the state of the downpipe before the tenancy began and the tenants submitted, they knew nothing about the damage.
The claim for the repair to the downpipe fails, but an award is made for the repair to the wall.

Did the tenants interfere with the fire alarm?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenants have removed or interfered with the smoke alarm in the lounge room by taking it down from the ceiling.
The landlord wanted exemplary damages for the removal.
In response, the tenants agreed they had removed the smoke alarm because it was close to the kitchen and kept “going off” when they were cooking.
The tenants thought it was okay to remove the alarm because there was another alarm in the upstairs area of the flat.
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. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the tenants committed an unlawful act by removing the smoke alarm. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord comply with her obligations?

DAVID TURNER, LOGAN ALEXANDER JEFFERY BUNNING and MAX IVERSEN claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, and failing to fix the three broken windows in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and having a heat pump that only blew cold air.
In response, the landlord disputed that the premises were not clean and pointed out that the tenants had not previously complained about this issue and had signed the property inspection condition report after they moved in.
Further the landlord provided a copy of the carpet cleaning invoice from 1/2/2023 when the carpets were cleaned.
The landlord submitted that she was unable to gain access to the premises to have the windows fixed. This was because of the possessions stored in the property at the end of 2022, without her consent, which meant tradespeople did not have enough clear space to undertake the repair work.
When the possessions were removed the landlord submitted that the work was completed within a month.
The landlord suggested the tenants had not told her about the defective heat pump and the tenants confirmed this was the case.
Although agreeing that they left possessions in the premises the tenants did not believe this blocked access.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The tenants’ photographs have failed to persuade me that the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
Further I accept the evidence of the landlord that access was blocked by the tenants’ possessions and the windows were unable to be repaired in a reasonable timeframe.
Under section 40(1)(d) tenants have a responsibility to notify a landlord of any damage or need for repairs.
The fact that the tenants failed to notify the landlord about the need to repair the heat pump means that the landlord is not responsible for the defective heat pump repair until she became aware of the situation, in this case after the tenancy ended. Did the landlord correctly dispose of the tenants’ goods?
The tenants wanted compensation of $1,000.00 for the landlord having disposed of a mattress, golf set, chilly bin and blankets left at the premises after the end of the tenancy.
While agreeing they did not have the consent of the landlord to store the possessions at the premises, they “assumed” it would be okay to do so.
In response the landlord was adamant that she did not agree with the tenants leaving their possessions at the premises after the tenancy ended, any more than she had consented to them storing their possessions at the premises before the tenancy began.
Further the landlord submitted that as the tenants had not removed the possessions after being given notice to do so, she disposed of the items because she believed they were of little or no value.
Section 62 provides for what happens when tenants leave possessions at premises after the end of the tenancy.
The landlord must take all reasonable steps to contact the tenant and agree on a period within which the goods can be collected.
If contact is unable to be made or agreement reached the landlord must secure the possessions in safe storage and make all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of the goods.
After taking personal documents to the nearest Police station, if the landlord considers the goods are of no value, they may dispose of them as the landlord sees fit.
I find the landlord has not breached the provisions of section 62.
The landlord attempted to contact the tenants about removal of the goods and when this was unsuccessful made enquiries about the value of the possessions, which she believed was minimal.
The tenants provided no objective evidence to support the value of any of the goods.
The claim for compensation fails.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the tenants committed an unlawful act by removing the smoke alarm, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenants.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
Although I consider the tenants intentionally removed the smoke alarm, I am not persuaded they did this with intent to breach the law.
Rather it is clear that the tenants were unaware of why the legislation provides for smoke alarms and the importance of these as devices to save lives in the event of fire.
I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is just and equitable in the circumstances.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because she was largely successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884401 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884401 — Property damage

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants interfere with the fire alarm?

Did the landlord comply with her obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants interfere with the fire alarm?

Did the landlord comply with her obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions