What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954873 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4954873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954873?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10794806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954873 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4954873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954873?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10794806-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 422, 133 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4954873 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $390.14 (6465466-004) to Leticia Amoakoa Owusu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought the return of the balance of the bond as compensation for a fire alarm related call out of $390.14.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background
This tenancy commenced 21 August 2023 and ended 30 June 2024. It is a furnished studio unit at the end of the corridor on the fourth floor of a multi-story building.
On the night of 30 May 2024, the hallway smoke/fire alarm outside the tenant’s room sounded. The building was evacuated although no actual danger existed.
Afterwards, the landlord emailed the local occupants asking if they know of the cause. The tenant responded saying she had been showering at the time. Her partner was in the unit and apparently in a video meeting. At that time the landlord email suggested smoke from burnt cooking was the cause of activation. The tenant replied that there had been excessive “water vapour” in the unit as she did not close the internal door to the shower. She said she was unsure if that was the cause of the alarm.
Later, the alarm contractor who reset the alarm invoiced for the callout and stated the cause was steam that had dissipated afterwards. That was on 10 June 2024.
The landlord provided CCTV footage of the corridor just before and after the alarm. The line of sight does not allow viewing of any doors opening or closing. My conclusion is that the footage shows it more than likely that steam from the tenant’s unit was the source and subsequent trigger of the alarm. They were the last occupants to exit and it was curious that during that delayed period there was no check of the visual check of the corridor. I consider the alarming of the corridor would be different enough to be separated from the more frequent internal alarming that occurs in such buildings. Further, the exits from the neighbouring units and their doors closing would be likely heard.

Is the tenant liable for the cost?

The landlord has provided the body corporate rules and residents handbook to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. These include reference to fire alarms and liability for any related costs.
I was curious why, assuming the steam was the cause, why it had not triggered the internal alarm in the unit as the main door was presumably closed during the steam buildup. I heard that the shower is nearer the main door than the internal alarm that is nearer the bed.
I do not consider it likely the steam would have escaped from the unit via any draught or gap given the main door is fire rated.
I am left to conclude it more than likely the steam escaped after the main door was opened, logically in an attempt to release the steam that had built up, as acknowledged by the tenant in her email. The CCTV footage appears to support this as the swirling vapour around the alarm arrives quickly and does not last long. A slower release may have produced a less significant impact.
The extractor in the unit is a continuous operating system from a rooftop master unit so there is no ability or requirement for manual or local switching on of any mechanical extraction within the unit. The failure to close the internal door to the shower would likely have further limited the ability of the extractor to remove the steam efficiently but there are a number of reasons the internal door might be opened during expected use, allowing a possible escape of steam.
I find it proven to the required standard the tenant caused the alarm to trigger. I have some concern however that the internal extraction, combined with a lack of alternative internal exit for the steam, may have created a greater “vapour event” than might have been reasonably expected. The lack of any reaction from the internal alarm prevented some prior warning. I am not certain the triggering of the corridor alarm by the quick release of steam was reasonably foreseeable given the silence of the internal alarm and the problem being steam rather than smoke.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
Given the overall circumstances, I decline to order the recovery of the alarm cost on the tenant and return the balance of the bond to her. It may be that some notice on the premises side of the main door, advising caution before opening if vapour or such are present inside, might avoid future repeats. It would certainly move the responsibility “dial” for any subsequent alarm more towards the tenant. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been unsuccessful, no suppression is ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $390.14 (6465466-004) to Leticia Amoakoa Owusu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought the return of the balance of the bond as compensation for a fire alarm related call out of $390.14.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background
This tenancy commenced 21 August 2023 and ended 30 June 2024. It is a furnished studio unit at the end of the corridor on the fourth floor of a multi-story building.
On the night of 30 May 2024, the hallway smoke/fire alarm outside the tenant’s room sounded. The building was evacuated although no actual danger existed.
Afterwards, the landlord emailed the local occupants asking if they know of the cause. The tenant responded saying she had been showering at the time. Her partner was in the unit and apparently in a video meeting. At that time the landlord email suggested smoke from burnt cooking was the cause of activation. The tenant replied that there had been excessive “water vapour” in the unit as she did not close the internal door to the shower. She said she was unsure if that was the cause of the alarm.
Later, the alarm contractor who reset the alarm invoiced for the callout and stated the cause was steam that had dissipated afterwards. That was on 10 June 2024.
The landlord provided CCTV footage of the corridor just before and after the alarm. The line of sight does not allow viewing of any doors opening or closing. My conclusion is that the footage shows it more than likely that steam from the tenant’s unit was the source and subsequent trigger of the alarm. They were the last occupants to exit and it was curious that during that delayed period there was no check of the visual check of the corridor. I consider the alarming of the corridor would be different enough to be separated from the more frequent internal alarming that occurs in such buildings. Further, the exits from the neighbouring units and their doors closing would be likely heard.

Is the tenant liable for the cost?

The landlord has provided the body corporate rules and residents handbook to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. These include reference to fire alarms and liability for any related costs.
I was curious why, assuming the steam was the cause, why it had not triggered the internal alarm in the unit as the main door was presumably closed during the steam buildup. I heard that the shower is nearer the main door than the internal alarm that is nearer the bed.
I do not consider it likely the steam would have escaped from the unit via any draught or gap given the main door is fire rated.
I am left to conclude it more than likely the steam escaped after the main door was opened, logically in an attempt to release the steam that had built up, as acknowledged by the tenant in her email. The CCTV footage appears to support this as the swirling vapour around the alarm arrives quickly and does not last long. A slower release may have produced a less significant impact.
The extractor in the unit is a continuous operating system from a rooftop master unit so there is no ability or requirement for manual or local switching on of any mechanical extraction within the unit. The failure to close the internal door to the shower would likely have further limited the ability of the extractor to remove the steam efficiently but there are a number of reasons the internal door might be opened during expected use, allowing a possible escape of steam.
I find it proven to the required standard the tenant caused the alarm to trigger. I have some concern however that the internal extraction, combined with a lack of alternative internal exit for the steam, may have created a greater “vapour event” than might have been reasonably expected. The lack of any reaction from the internal alarm prevented some prior warning. I am not certain the triggering of the corridor alarm by the quick release of steam was reasonably foreseeable given the silence of the internal alarm and the problem being steam rather than smoke.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
Given the overall circumstances, I decline to order the recovery of the alarm cost on the tenant and return the balance of the bond to her. It may be that some notice on the premises side of the main door, advising caution before opening if vapour or such are present inside, might avoid future repeats. It would certainly move the responsibility “dial” for any subsequent alarm more towards the tenant. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been unsuccessful, no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954873 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 422, 133 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954873 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 422, 133 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions