What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5107689?

The tribunal order states: Xiatong Hao and Ke Zhang to pay Yan Rong $377.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5107689?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107689?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5107689?

The tribunal order states: Xiatong Hao and Ke Zhang to pay Yan Rong $377.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5107689?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107689?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1011B, 438 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5107689 — Smoke alarms

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107689 — net $377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interference with smoke alarms (exemplary damages	$350.00	Interference with smoke alarms (exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$377.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$377.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for exemplary damages, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.

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.

The kitchen splashback was damaged during the tenancy. While the damage to the splashback is more than fair wear and tear, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they have not intentionally or carelessly damaged the splashback. The resultant damage appears to be heat related from pots or pans used by the tenant which I do not consider to have been caused intentionally or carelessly.

Consequently, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts claimed by the landlord for repairs to the splashback is accordingly dismissed.

Has the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms?

Yan Rong claims the tenant has 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.

The tenant placed coverings on the smoke alarms which has the effect of interfering with the smoke alarm and rendering the smoke alarm inoperative. 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.

The tenant explained that the smoke alarm was particularly sensitive and that they took advice from their friends on covering it up to prevent false alarms.

However, I find that at no time did the tenant advise the landlord of the issue with the unusual sensitivity of the smoke alarm during the tenancy. The advice given to the tenant by their friends are also patently wrong and dangerous. Upon being told by the landlord at the exit inspection that smoke alarms should not be covered up, the tenant removed it immediately.

Having regard to the tenant’s intent in covering up the smoke alarm due to patently incorrect advice by their friends, the effect of the unlawful act in the dangerous condition created by the tenant, the interests of the landlord, and the public interest in ensuring that smoke alarms are not tampered with, I consider it just to award exemplary damages at $350.00 in this instance. Conclusion

Because Yan Rong has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee to her.

Apart from reimbursement of the filing fee, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the landlord’s claim for “administrative costs” in prosecuting her claims here today. See section 102 (1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Only the amounts ordered are proved; the bond is accordingly disbursed to the parties as set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107689 — net $377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interference with smoke alarms (exemplary damages	$350.00	Interference with smoke alarms (exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$377.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$377.00

Order

Xiatong Hao and Ke Zhang to pay Yan Rong $377.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6217307-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Yan Rong: $377.00 Xiatong Hao and Ke Zhang: $1,703.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
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.
The kitchen splashback was damaged during the tenancy. While the damage to the splashback is more than fair wear and tear, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they have not intentionally or carelessly damaged the splashback. The resultant damage appears to be heat related from pots or pans used by the tenant which I do not consider to have been caused intentionally or carelessly.
Consequently, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts claimed by the landlord for repairs to the splashback is accordingly dismissed.

Has the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms?

Yan Rong claims the tenant has 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.
The tenant placed coverings on the smoke alarms which has the effect of interfering with the smoke alarm and rendering the smoke alarm inoperative. 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.
The tenant explained that the smoke alarm was particularly sensitive and that they took advice from their friends on covering it up to prevent false alarms.
However, I find that at no time did the tenant advise the landlord of the issue with the unusual sensitivity of the smoke alarm during the tenancy. The advice given to the tenant by their friends are also patently wrong and dangerous. Upon being told by the landlord at the exit inspection that smoke alarms should not be covered up, the tenant removed it immediately.
Having regard to the tenant’s intent in covering up the smoke alarm due to patently incorrect advice by their friends, the effect of the unlawful act in the dangerous condition created by the tenant, the interests of the landlord, and the public interest in ensuring that smoke alarms are not tampered with, I consider it just to award exemplary damages at $350.00 in this instance. Conclusion
Because Yan Rong has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee to her.
Apart from reimbursement of the filing fee, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the landlord’s claim for “administrative costs” in prosecuting her claims here today. See section 102 (1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Only the amounts ordered are proved; the bond is accordingly disbursed to the parties as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107689 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 1011B, 438 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107689 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 1011B, 438 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms?

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 premises?

Has the tenant interfered with the smoke alarms?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions