Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5313291 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 30 Jul 2025 · Published 30 Jul 2025 · Application 5313291
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
- The application by the landlord for compensation of $621.00 is dismissed.
- Edinburgh Realty Limited as agent for James Lyons is to immediately pay to the tenants the filing fee of $28.00.
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord claimed compensation of $621.00 being the costs incurred for fire alarm call outs on 27/3/2025 and 11/5/2025.
- In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices from the electrician, which included statements about the possible causes of both events being, leaving the heater on while proving yeast in the bathroom and using a diffuser in the bedroom.
- In addition, the owner of the premises gave evidence about a test undertaken in the bathroom on 4/4/2025, which did not trigger the alarm.
- The owner explained that heat detectors were installed in the bathrooms and common areas of the complex which triggered a global alarm and smoke detectors were in bedroom and lounge areas which could be turned off in each unit.
- In response, the tenant did not believe they were liable for the costs claimed because of the following factors: a. The alarm in their unit had gone off twice before, the first time before they took possession of the premises, b. Prior to the owner and electrician undertaking the test on the bathroom, the owner had cleaned out the extractor fan which contained a significant amount of dust, c. When they inspected the premises in 2024 the tenants submitted that the particular bathroom was being used to store building materials and they believed this is where the dust came from, d. Their unit contained two bathrooms and they had not had any issues with the alarm in the other bathroom activating, e. The tenant believed other apartments had had issues with alarms activating, f. They disputed the evidence from the electrician who had been called out to the smoke detector on 11/5/2025 which had been going off in one bedroom intermittently. This was because the electrician suggested it was due to the tenant using an infuser, when in fact it was a diffuser which only created vapour not smoke.
- This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claims are more likely than not.
- The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
- The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
- Under section 39 a landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied and for common facilities.
- Section 40 sets out the responsibilities of tenants.
- I am not persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that it is more likely than not the tenant is responsible to pay for the two fire alarm call outs claimed.
- The evidence supports there have been issues with the fire alarms, resulting in replacement of a sensor.
- The landlord did not dispute that the test on 4/4/2025 was undertaken after removal of significant dust from the extractor fan.
- It is possible that the electrician was confused about the difference between an infuser and a diffuser.
- The claim by the landlord for compensation fails.
- As the tenant has been wholly successful with their application, I have awarded the filing fee.
- Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were successful with the proceedings.
- No suppression is available to the landlord.