What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885444 about?

The tribunal order states: Eugene Bedard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,343.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4885444?

Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $822.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885444?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885444 about?

The tribunal order states: Eugene Bedard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,343.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4885444?

Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $822.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885444?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885444 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885444 — net $1,343.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$822.94	Replace furnishings: carpet
Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarm	$500.00	interference with smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,343.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,343.38

Order

Eugene Bedard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,343.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I tried to telephone the tenant, but the phone number did not connect. The application was made within two months of the tenancy ending and notice of the hearing date and time has been posted to the tenancy address. I continued the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
This is a boarding house tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation relating to damaged carpet in the tenant’s room and seeks that the tenant pays exemplary damages (which are like a fine) alleging that the smoke alarm in the room was tampered with.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord has proved that the carpet in the tenant’s room was damaged during the tenancy. There were several stains, one very large one in the wardrobe, and the carpet was deeply soiled and stained along the doorway.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I accept that it is reasonable that the landlord replaces the carpet in the room.
An invoice proves that the cost to replace the carpet is $959.56.
The landlord does hold insurance and the excess for a claim is $500.00. The landlord has not made an insurance claim and submits that the damage was caused by more than one event so more than one excess would probably apply.
I accept this submission although note that often insurance companies only charge one excess per room.
I depreciate the value of the new carpet and underlay by 33.3% to recognise that there would have been normal wear and tear. This is a deduction of $136.62 from the invoice. I award a total of $822.94. Should exemplary damages be awarded for tampering with a smoke alarm
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the 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. 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.
On 7 September 2023, the landlord discovered during a property inspection that the tenant had covered the smoke alarm in his room with a plastic bag. I find the tenant has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider the factors below:- a. Intent: On 5 May 2023, the landlord issued the tenant with a breach notice for smoking inside the premises. It is likely that the tenant covered the smoke alarm so that he or his visitors could continue to smoke in the room. On 7 September 2023, he was issued another breach notice to stop tampering with the fire alarm and to stop smoking inside. The tenancy continued for 6 months after this and there is no evidence of another breach of this type. b. Effect: The effect of covering the smoke alarm is that it would probably not function as it should. If there had been a fire, the tenant and the nine other occupants of the boarding house would have been at risk of injury or death. c. Interests of the landlord: Smoke alarms must always remain operational, to keep tenants and the premises safe and to comply with the law. d. Public interest: It is important that all tenants and landlords understand that smoke alarms are non-negotiable. This is a strict and important requirement.
It is just to award exemplary damages because of how important this issue is. I award $500.00 which is at the lower end of the scale because there is no evidence of a further breach after the landlord issued the notice of breach. This is a warning to the tenant to take this issue seriously. Filing fee and suppression
I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name and tenancy address details as the claim is substantially successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885444 — net $1,343.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$822.94	Replace furnishings: carpet
Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarm	$500.00	interference with smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,343.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,343.38

Order

Eugene Bedard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,343.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I tried to telephone the tenant, but the phone number did not connect. The application was made within two months of the tenancy ending and notice of the hearing date and time has been posted to the tenancy address. I continued the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
This is a boarding house tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation relating to damaged carpet in the tenant’s room and seeks that the tenant pays exemplary damages (which are like a fine) alleging that the smoke alarm in the room was tampered with.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord has proved that the carpet in the tenant’s room was damaged during the tenancy. There were several stains, one very large one in the wardrobe, and the carpet was deeply soiled and stained along the doorway.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I accept that it is reasonable that the landlord replaces the carpet in the room.
An invoice proves that the cost to replace the carpet is $959.56.
The landlord does hold insurance and the excess for a claim is $500.00. The landlord has not made an insurance claim and submits that the damage was caused by more than one event so more than one excess would probably apply.
I accept this submission although note that often insurance companies only charge one excess per room.
I depreciate the value of the new carpet and underlay by 33.3% to recognise that there would have been normal wear and tear. This is a deduction of $136.62 from the invoice. I award a total of $822.94. Should exemplary damages be awarded for tampering with a smoke alarm
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the 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. 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.
On 7 September 2023, the landlord discovered during a property inspection that the tenant had covered the smoke alarm in his room with a plastic bag. I find the tenant has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider the factors below:- a. Intent: On 5 May 2023, the landlord issued the tenant with a breach notice for smoking inside the premises. It is likely that the tenant covered the smoke alarm so that he or his visitors could continue to smoke in the room. On 7 September 2023, he was issued another breach notice to stop tampering with the fire alarm and to stop smoking inside. The tenancy continued for 6 months after this and there is no evidence of another breach of this type. b. Effect: The effect of covering the smoke alarm is that it would probably not function as it should. If there had been a fire, the tenant and the nine other occupants of the boarding house would have been at risk of injury or death. c. Interests of the landlord: Smoke alarms must always remain operational, to keep tenants and the premises safe and to comply with the law. d. Public interest: It is important that all tenants and landlords understand that smoke alarms are non-negotiable. This is a strict and important requirement.
It is just to award exemplary damages because of how important this issue is. I award $500.00 which is at the lower end of the scale because there is no evidence of a further breach after the landlord issued the notice of breach. This is a warning to the tenant to take this issue seriously. Filing fee and suppression
I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name and tenancy address details as the claim is substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885444 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885444 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions