What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198254 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5198254?

Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198254?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725079-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198254 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5198254?

Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198254?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725079-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

84 Tebbutt Road, Lower Kaimai, Tauranga 3171 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198254 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198254 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain smoke alarms	$500.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain smoke alarms
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198254 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain smoke alarms	$500.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain smoke alarms
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The claims regarding breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to repair steps in a timely way and failure to repair the security alarm in a timely way are dismissed.
The notice of termination dated 16 February 2025 is not retaliatory and is of full force and effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Both the tenants and the landlord were attended by a support person.
The tenants have made a claim against the landlord seeking awards of exemplary damages, a declaration that the notice of termination was retaliatory and of no effect, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
I shall address each of the tenants’ claims in turn. Smoke alarm
The tenants say that the landlord has breached her obligations under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to ensure the timely replacement of smoke alarms that were not working, or by failing to ensure that the smoke alarms were working.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
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 accept the evidence that since the beginning of the tenancy the tenant has reported to the landlord that some of the smoke alarms were faulty. I also accept the evidence that up to the end of 2024, the landlord has responded in a timely way regarding these issues.
However, in February 2025, the tenant again reported a fault with the smoke alarm in her room (8 February 2025), a fault in her son’s room on 9 February 2025 and another fault with the smoke alarm in the laundry on 26 February 2025.
On 26 February 2025 the landlord advised her to clean the smoke alarms as per the manufacturer’s instructions and if that doesn’t work, to put them aside so that the landlord could return them to the shop from which they were bought.
On 5 March 2025 the tenant gave the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy the smoke alarm issue. The landlord responded advising her to relocate working alarms from elsewhere in the house to the bedrooms so that the bedrooms were alarmed.
On this evidence I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I say this only because I consider it unreasonable to require a tenant to clean or replace a smoke alarm when the smoke alarm is located on a very high ceiling, as in the tenant’s bedroom.
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.
In considering these factors, I accept that the landlord committed this act intentionally in that they did not mistakenly or by accident advise the tenant to clean or relocate the existing smoke alarms.
I have awarded $500.00 in exemplary damages which is at the low end of the scale. I do so because I accept the evidence that the tenant did not subsequently advise the landlord as to whether or not the alarm had been relocated to her bedroom, and that if it had been, the premises were sufficiently alarmed.
I have also taken into account the tenant’s evidence that she became worried about possible fire, her inability to quickly vacate the premises if in fact there was a fire, and strong public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly when it comes to tenants’ safety. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] say that the landlord has permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premises.
A landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The background to this claim is that the tenant’s neighbour uses the driveway, that forms part of the tenanted premises to access a paddock in which she grazes her sheep. The tenants were aware of this arrangement prior to the tenancy starting.
On 22 September 2024 the tenant asked the neighbour to stop smoking/vaping on the driveway and to stop doing skids. It appears that the neighbour told the landlord about this interaction and the landlord then asked the tenant to be nice to the neighbour.
Since that time the neighbour has grazed the paddock for three days at the end of December 2024.
The tenant states that the neighbour did further skids on the driveway on 18 October 2024 and 5 November 2024.
There was also an issue on 6 February 2025 when the neighbour wanted the tenant to move items such as the trampoline so that the sheep could get past. The tenant’s evidence indicated that this was an unhappy interaction and on 23 February 2025 she discussed issuing a trespass order to the neighbour with the Police.
On 5 March 2025 the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy what she regarded as a breach of her quiet enjoyment. As a response to this notice the landlord advised the neighbour to no longer use that paddock for grazing.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim, largely because there is no evidence that the tenants advised the landlord of any further issues with the neighbour after 22 September 2024. It was not until the 14 day notice to remedy which was issued on 5 March 2025 that the tenant gave further notice of the problem with the neighbour. As a consequence of that notice, I consider that the landlord reasonably requested the neighbour to no longer graze the paddock, as a way of stopping any further interaction between the tenants and the neighbour.
On this evidence then, I find that the landlord did not intentionally permit any interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in their use of the premises. Failure to repair step in a timely way
The tenants claim that the landlord breached their obligations under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to repair a step to the paddock in a timely way.
Under s45, the landlord the landlord must maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair.
On 20 February 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord advising that the step was loose. The landlord told her to use the other accessway to the paddock and on 5 March 2025 the tenant sent the landlord a 14 day notice to repair the step.
In response to this notice the landlord advised the tenant that she was on holiday until early April and that the step would be repaired when she got back. It was repaired on 5 April 2025.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim for reasons that include: (a) I accept that the landlord was on holiday from 19 February 2025 to 2 April 2025; and (b) I find that the issue of repair was not urgent because the tenants could in fact use a gate to access the paddock; and (c) I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that she could not use that gate because of rabbit holes because she later advised that she climbed the fence to access the paddock, which she apparently did each day; and (d) I accept that the landlord repaired the step as soon as possible after her return. Failure to repair security alarm in a timely way
The tenants claim that the landlord again breached s45 by failing to repair the security alarm in a timely way.
During the October 2024 inspection the tenant advised the landlord that the security alarm was broken because a red message came up on it reading “Error”.
The landlord advised her that this message meant that the battery was low and that the back-up would kick in should there be an electricity cut. She also advised the tenant that in any case the security alarm was not part of the tenancy agreement.
I understand that the alarm still reads “Error”.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim for reasons that include: (a) The tenants advised that they have never used the alarm; and (b) That they have never tested it to see whether it was working; and (c) There is therefore no evidence that the alarm was not functioning. Retaliatory Notice
Section 54(2) provides that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that a notice of termination was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) That in giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or the proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b) That, in giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on this person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises.
Section 54(3) provides that if the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.
Section 54(4) provides that if the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both grounds in s54(2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under s54(3), of no effect.
The tenants say that the notice of termination dated 16 February 2025 was retaliatory and motivated either wholly or partly by their insistence that it was the landlord’s responsibility to have the chimney swept, their ongoing complaints with regard to the smoke alarms, and continuing issues with the neighbour.
As the applicants, it is the tenants’ obligation to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the tenants have to prove that more likely than not the landlord’s notice of termination was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants’ exercise of their rights.
I find that the tenants have not proved their claim to the required standard.
This finding is for reasons that include: (a) It was accepted evidence that the landlord charged a low rent to the tenants because they were friends; and (b) Although the rent has increased by $50.00 per week since the start of the tenancy, I accept the landlord’s evidence that given her more recent health issues and circumstances she is unable to continue providing the premises at a low rate; and (c) Her need to re-evaluate her financial circumstances led to her terminating the tenancy. Filing fee reimbursement
Given that the tenants were not substantially successful in their claim against the landlord they are to bear their own cost of filing this application in the Tenancy Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
Both parties have applied for suppression of their names.
I am allowing the landlord’s application pursuant to s95A(3).
I am also allowing the tenants’ application under s95A(1) because I accept that one tenant has significant issues regarding her health, which will most likely be exacerbated if her name is published. Further to this, given the types of claims that she has made against the landlord, I see her application really as a desperate attempt to retain her tenancy. I consider that there is little public interest in publishing her name when in all other respects they appear to be a good tenants. C ter Haar 16 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198254 — Smoke alarms at 84 Tebbutt Road, Lower Kaimai, Tauranga 3171

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198254 — Smoke alarms at 84 Tebbutt Road, Lower Kaimai, Tauranga 3171

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