What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970713 about?

The tribunal order states: Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $6,069.19

How much money was awarded in case 4970713?

Callout Fees: $935.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970713?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10904351-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970713 about?

The tribunal order states: Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $6,069.19

How much money was awarded in case 4970713?

Callout Fees: $935.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970713?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10904351-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970713 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970713 — net $6,069.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,480.00	Rent arrears
Callout fees	$935.19	Callout fees
Exemplary damages	$2,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,069.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,069.19

Order

Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $6,069.19 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing which was conducted remotely. Two attempts to reach the tenant were unsuccessful.
On 23 August 2024 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to today’s date is $3,480. The rent is more than 21 days in arrears. See section 55(1)(a) and section 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.
The tenant is ordered to pay the rent arrears of $3,480. Claims concerning fire alarms
On 21 September the landlords filed a second application with the Tenancy Tribunal regarding the tenants’ interference with the fire alarms. They sought compensation and exemplary damages.
On 27 September the landlords emailed the Tenancy Tribunal and the tenant with an outline of their claims: Filing fees - $54 Bond - $900 Invoices from McArthur and Symons - $935.19 Rent arrears as of 27 /09/24 - $3480 Total: $5369.19
The email also claimed: Exemplary damages - as appropriate - 4 x repeated admitted intentional interference (despite multiple notices to remedy issued outlining details of breaches) with fire alarm system during both day and night between 18/09/24-26/09/24 causing significant distress to others. 18/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 19/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 21/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 26/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000
A notice of today’s hearing that was sent to the parties lists the following issues: Current Tenancy Termination/possession - s 50A, 55, 56, 64, 77, 78 Compensation / Damages - s 77(2)(n) Exemplary Damages - s 77(2)(o), 109 - Schedule 1A Refund bond - s 22B Application fee refund - s 102(4) Smoke alarms regulations - s 40(1)(ca), 45(1)(ba).
I am satisfied that the tenant had proper notice of all matters and so I could deal with them at today’s hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 18 April 2024. The premises are part of a body corporate.
It is a condition of the tenancy agreement that there is no smoking.
The landlord provided a screenshot of a text sent to the tenant on 19 April 2024 which says, “Just clarifying no candles or incense with the fire alarm system too thanks.” The tenant replied, “Oh lucky you told me, I got a lovely candle for my birthday from Harvey which I had buying (sic) last night so I will make sure I don’t do that again. Sorry.”
The landlord provided copies of letters and text communications which corroborate their claim that on four different occasions the engineer for the complex and/or Fire and Emergency had been called out because of the actions of the tenant or her guests.
The landlord provided several pieces of correspondence from Keiran Harper of McArthur Symons Electrical. In a signed letter on letterhead dated 19 September 2024, Mr Harper said: On 18/09/2024 I was called to an alarm activation at 39 View St. Upon arrival (8mins of me receiving the call) I discovered one of the smoke detectors had been activated in apt 3, I entered the property and was invited in by the occupants, I checked over the components and found that they had likely been set off by burning incense, cigarettes or possibly vaping within the apartment. Today 19/09/2024 I was called back for a defect alarm, upon arrival (2.5 hours) I found the defect had been detected in apt 3. I again entered the property, again being invited in, one of the occupants inside admitted to removing the smoke detector so he could ‘light an incense’. He also admitted that once he saw my van arrive, he put the detector back. I was able to confirm which detector had been removed (lounge) as the fire alarm does not restore a ‘heartbeat’ to the detector until I reset the system. This incident is of a serious nature and needs to be addressed immediately as: “In New Zealand, a tenant tampering with a fire alarm would be breaking the law under the Building Act 2004 as it constitutes interfering with a "means of escape from fire," which includes fire alarms, potentially leading to fines and penalties if found in breach; this is also considered a breach of tenancy law, where tenants can be held liable for damaging property and potentially face financial consequences for tampering with safety equipment like smoke alarms. Key points about this violation: Offence: Tampering with a fire alarm is considered an offence under the Building Act as it hinders the ability to escape safely in case of a fire. Potential penalties: Tenants can face fines, including exemplary damages, for tampering with a fire alarm. Tenant responsibility: Under tenancy laws, tenants are responsible for maintaining the functionality of smoke alarms and must report any issues to the landlord.”
On 20 September the landlord wrote to the tenant saying that she had breached her tenancy agreement by - Igniting a smoke product inside the building - Intentionally tampering with the fire alarm system, causing a serious incident that restricts all building occupiers’ ability to safely evacuate in case of a fire. - Repeat ignition of a smoke product inside the building over multiple days despite being informed by fire safety engineer not to ignite smoke products.
The landlord reminded the tenant that the above examples of her admitted behaviour are in breach of our tenancy agreement which states no smoking inside and compliance with fire alarm system and evacuation as conditions of the tenancy.
In a second letter from McArthur Symons Electrical, Mr Harper said: On 21/09/2024 I was called to a fire alarm activation at 39 View St. Upon arrival I discovered a smoke detector had been activated in flat 3. After knocking on the door, no one answered, and I entered the property (using master key set) to determine if there was a reason for activation. Once inside the flat I found the smoke detector inside the front landing had been tampered with (covered with a plastic glove) and the bedroom smoke detector had been activated. There was a residual cigarette smell inside the flat. After determining this to be a false alarm, I reset the fire alarm and completed the panel self test.
The evidence of a smoke detector being tampered with was a photograph showing a plastic or rubber glove attached to the smoke detector.
On 24 September the landlord wrote again to the tenant recording that she had breached terms of her tenancy by: - Smoking inside the building - Intentionally tampering with the fire alarm system, causing a serious incident that restricts all building occupiers’ ability to safely evacuate in case of a fire. - The above examples of your admitted behaviour are in breach of our tenancy agreement which states no smoking inside and compliance with fire alarm system and evacuation as conditions of the tenancy
The landlord provided a copy of an email dated 23 September 2024 from Mr Harper to the landlord, which reads: Further to my recent callout 26/09/24 I thought it’d be good for me to get in writing to you some background on the systems at 39 View St. McArthur & Symons has been looking after the BWOF and fire alarm system at View St for over 10 years. Other than the occasional smoke alarm being set off for burnt toast or the likes, there hasn’t been any ongoing issue with the building systems. The Fire Alarm is of a modern standard and performs to the specified standards (NZS 4512:2003& :2005) This system is checked monthly, with no recalled malfunctions. The system has had reactive replacement parts installed after flooding or similar. I have no doubt the defects & fire activations do not come from any fault or failure of the fire alarm or building systems. It is my professional opinion that these defect and fire activations have been caused by the tenants/occupants. You can note on record that; One of the occupants has admitted to tampering of a smoke detector. Attached is evidence of a smoke detector being tampered with on another occasion. On the 3 occasions I have entered the apartment there was strong smoking odours present. Whilst the smoking inside isn’t my issue, the issue is nuisance fire alarms lead to compromised evacuations plans and processes, in that occupants do not treat every alarm as a fire. The most serious issue is that of tampering with the fire alarm, in that by disconnecting, disabling or removing any component of the fire alarm the occupant may introduce a delay in the alarm sounding thus preventing the warning system from operating to its capacity and potentially endangering lives and property.
The landlord also provided 3 invoices from McArthur and Symons for: $334.77 for callouts on 18 and 19 September $303.26 for callout on 21 September $297.16 for callout on 24 September.
I find it is more likely than not that on four occasions the callouts were required because of the actions of the tenant or someone there with her permission. Mr Harper said that on the three occasion he entered the apartment he could smell strong smoking odours. At the first callout he checked over the components and found that they had likely been set off by burning incense, cigarettes or possibly vaping within the apartment. On the third occasion, he could smell residual cigarette smoke.
Mr Harper also said that there is no other likely cause for the alarm activating.
I therefore order the tenant to pay $$935.19 for the callout fees.
The landlord also claims that the tenant 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.
Based on the correspondence from Mr Harper, I am satisfied that the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms on at least 2 occasions: 19 September and 21 September. I find they have 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 am satisfied that the tenant intentionally interfered with the smoke alarms on at least two occasions (or knowingly allowed her guests to do so). This is a very serious matter, potentially putting life at risk. It is important that she and other tenants are sent a strong message that such action cannot be tolerated. The second occasion happened even after the landlord had formally warned her.
Accordingly I have decided that an order of exemplary damages totalling $2,500 is appropriate.
Because the landlord has been successful, I must reimburse the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970713 — net $6,069.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,480.00	Rent arrears
Callout fees	$935.19	Callout fees
Exemplary damages	$2,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,069.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,069.19

Order

Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $6,069.19 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing which was conducted remotely. Two attempts to reach the tenant were unsuccessful.
On 23 August 2024 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to today’s date is $3,480. The rent is more than 21 days in arrears. See section 55(1)(a) and section 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.
The tenant is ordered to pay the rent arrears of $3,480. Claims concerning fire alarms
On 21 September the landlords filed a second application with the Tenancy Tribunal regarding the tenants’ interference with the fire alarms. They sought compensation and exemplary damages.
On 27 September the landlords emailed the Tenancy Tribunal and the tenant with an outline of their claims: Filing fees - $54 Bond - $900 Invoices from McArthur and Symons - $935.19 Rent arrears as of 27 /09/24 - $3480 Total: $5369.19
The email also claimed: Exemplary damages - as appropriate - 4 x repeated admitted intentional interference (despite multiple notices to remedy issued outlining details of breaches) with fire alarm system during both day and night between 18/09/24-26/09/24 causing significant distress to others. 18/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 19/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 21/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000 26/09/24 40(3A)(b) Tenant's interference, etc, with means of escape from fire - $4000
A notice of today’s hearing that was sent to the parties lists the following issues: Current Tenancy Termination/possession - s 50A, 55, 56, 64, 77, 78 Compensation / Damages - s 77(2)(n) Exemplary Damages - s 77(2)(o), 109 - Schedule 1A Refund bond - s 22B Application fee refund - s 102(4) Smoke alarms regulations - s 40(1)(ca), 45(1)(ba).
I am satisfied that the tenant had proper notice of all matters and so I could deal with them at today’s hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 18 April 2024. The premises are part of a body corporate.
It is a condition of the tenancy agreement that there is no smoking.
The landlord provided a screenshot of a text sent to the tenant on 19 April 2024 which says, “Just clarifying no candles or incense with the fire alarm system too thanks.” The tenant replied, “Oh lucky you told me, I got a lovely candle for my birthday from Harvey which I had buying (sic) last night so I will make sure I don’t do that again. Sorry.”
The landlord provided copies of letters and text communications which corroborate their claim that on four different occasions the engineer for the complex and/or Fire and Emergency had been called out because of the actions of the tenant or her guests.
The landlord provided several pieces of correspondence from Keiran Harper of McArthur Symons Electrical. In a signed letter on letterhead dated 19 September 2024, Mr Harper said: On 18/09/2024 I was called to an alarm activation at 39 View St. Upon arrival (8mins of me receiving the call) I discovered one of the smoke detectors had been activated in apt 3, I entered the property and was invited in by the occupants, I checked over the components and found that they had likely been set off by burning incense, cigarettes or possibly vaping within the apartment. Today 19/09/2024 I was called back for a defect alarm, upon arrival (2.5 hours) I found the defect had been detected in apt 3. I again entered the property, again being invited in, one of the occupants inside admitted to removing the smoke detector so he could ‘light an incense’. He also admitted that once he saw my van arrive, he put the detector back. I was able to confirm which detector had been removed (lounge) as the fire alarm does not restore a ‘heartbeat’ to the detector until I reset the system. This incident is of a serious nature and needs to be addressed immediately as: “In New Zealand, a tenant tampering with a fire alarm would be breaking the law under the Building Act 2004 as it constitutes interfering with a "means of escape from fire," which includes fire alarms, potentially leading to fines and penalties if found in breach; this is also considered a breach of tenancy law, where tenants can be held liable for damaging property and potentially face financial consequences for tampering with safety equipment like smoke alarms. Key points about this violation: Offence: Tampering with a fire alarm is considered an offence under the Building Act as it hinders the ability to escape safely in case of a fire. Potential penalties: Tenants can face fines, including exemplary damages, for tampering with a fire alarm. Tenant responsibility: Under tenancy laws, tenants are responsible for maintaining the functionality of smoke alarms and must report any issues to the landlord.”
On 20 September the landlord wrote to the tenant saying that she had breached her tenancy agreement by - Igniting a smoke product inside the building - Intentionally tampering with the fire alarm system, causing a serious incident that restricts all building occupiers’ ability to safely evacuate in case of a fire. - Repeat ignition of a smoke product inside the building over multiple days despite being informed by fire safety engineer not to ignite smoke products.
The landlord reminded the tenant that the above examples of her admitted behaviour are in breach of our tenancy agreement which states no smoking inside and compliance with fire alarm system and evacuation as conditions of the tenancy.
In a second letter from McArthur Symons Electrical, Mr Harper said: On 21/09/2024 I was called to a fire alarm activation at 39 View St. Upon arrival I discovered a smoke detector had been activated in flat 3. After knocking on the door, no one answered, and I entered the property (using master key set) to determine if there was a reason for activation. Once inside the flat I found the smoke detector inside the front landing had been tampered with (covered with a plastic glove) and the bedroom smoke detector had been activated. There was a residual cigarette smell inside the flat. After determining this to be a false alarm, I reset the fire alarm and completed the panel self test.
The evidence of a smoke detector being tampered with was a photograph showing a plastic or rubber glove attached to the smoke detector.
On 24 September the landlord wrote again to the tenant recording that she had breached terms of her tenancy by: - Smoking inside the building - Intentionally tampering with the fire alarm system, causing a serious incident that restricts all building occupiers’ ability to safely evacuate in case of a fire. - The above examples of your admitted behaviour are in breach of our tenancy agreement which states no smoking inside and compliance with fire alarm system and evacuation as conditions of the tenancy
The landlord provided a copy of an email dated 23 September 2024 from Mr Harper to the landlord, which reads: Further to my recent callout 26/09/24 I thought it’d be good for me to get in writing to you some background on the systems at 39 View St. McArthur & Symons has been looking after the BWOF and fire alarm system at View St for over 10 years. Other than the occasional smoke alarm being set off for burnt toast or the likes, there hasn’t been any ongoing issue with the building systems. The Fire Alarm is of a modern standard and performs to the specified standards (NZS 4512:2003& :2005) This system is checked monthly, with no recalled malfunctions. The system has had reactive replacement parts installed after flooding or similar. I have no doubt the defects & fire activations do not come from any fault or failure of the fire alarm or building systems. It is my professional opinion that these defect and fire activations have been caused by the tenants/occupants. You can note on record that; One of the occupants has admitted to tampering of a smoke detector. Attached is evidence of a smoke detector being tampered with on another occasion. On the 3 occasions I have entered the apartment there was strong smoking odours present. Whilst the smoking inside isn’t my issue, the issue is nuisance fire alarms lead to compromised evacuations plans and processes, in that occupants do not treat every alarm as a fire. The most serious issue is that of tampering with the fire alarm, in that by disconnecting, disabling or removing any component of the fire alarm the occupant may introduce a delay in the alarm sounding thus preventing the warning system from operating to its capacity and potentially endangering lives and property.
The landlord also provided 3 invoices from McArthur and Symons for: $334.77 for callouts on 18 and 19 September $303.26 for callout on 21 September $297.16 for callout on 24 September.
I find it is more likely than not that on four occasions the callouts were required because of the actions of the tenant or someone there with her permission. Mr Harper said that on the three occasion he entered the apartment he could smell strong smoking odours. At the first callout he checked over the components and found that they had likely been set off by burning incense, cigarettes or possibly vaping within the apartment. On the third occasion, he could smell residual cigarette smoke.
Mr Harper also said that there is no other likely cause for the alarm activating.
I therefore order the tenant to pay $$935.19 for the callout fees.
The landlord also claims that the tenant 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.
Based on the correspondence from Mr Harper, I am satisfied that the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms on at least 2 occasions: 19 September and 21 September. I find they have 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 am satisfied that the tenant intentionally interfered with the smoke alarms on at least two occasions (or knowingly allowed her guests to do so). This is a very serious matter, potentially putting life at risk. It is important that she and other tenants are sent a strong message that such action cannot be tolerated. The second occasion happened even after the landlord had formally warned her.
Accordingly I have decided that an order of exemplary damages totalling $2,500 is appropriate.
Because the landlord has been successful, I must reimburse the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970713 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970713 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions