What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364941 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay MD Woods Holdings Limited $603.00, immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5364941?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364941?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12780628-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364941 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay MD Woods Holdings Limited $603.00, immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5364941?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364941?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12780628-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 11 Johnston Street, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364941 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364941. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Call out fee - smoke alarm	$575.00		Call out fee - smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay MD Woods Holdings Limited $603.00, immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Woods, representing the landlord, and Mr McCullagh, the tenant, both attended the video conference/teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee in a current tenancy.
The landlord claimed $575.00 for the call out fee for the fire service to whom the landlord is contracted, when the smoke alarm in the tenant’s apartment was triggered and the fire service had to respond.
Mr Woods clarified that the correct landlord’s name should read “MD Woods Holdings Limited” rather than “The Splinter Group Limited” which is named as landlord on the tenancy agreement. Mr Woods explained he is a director of both companies and MD Woods Holdings Limited owns the apartment building in which the tenancy property is located.
It is up to the party claiming to provide sufficient evidence of their claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
Where parties dispute what occurred, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their version of events. Evidence
A clause in the tenancy agreement entitled ‘Fire Systems’ provides that the tenant shall be responsible to pay for all call out fees for fire systems, both the Fire Brigade and alarm system engineers or other costs or maintenance associated with smoke detectors or extinguishers in any instance where the avoidable or careless action of the tenant or their guests is responsible for any cost incurred in connection with the detector system.
On 28 July 2025 the fire alarm panel in Mr McCullagh’s apartment was activated. An email dated 18 August 2025 from the landlord’s fire service contractor, Equans, confirmed the fire alarm had been triggered in apartment 5 where Mr McCullagh lives, that the tenant had explained the alarm was caused by cooking smoke from an air fryer, that the smoke was subsequently cleared, and the fire alarm panel was reset. Equans charged the landlord $575.00 for this call out fee, as it was after hours. The landlord seeks to claim this from the tenant pursuant to the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement.
Mr McCullagh pointed to the part of the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement that indicated the behaviour that triggered a fire alarm would need to be avoidable or careless for the tenant to be responsible for this call out fee cost. He said that he was cooking normally in the kitchen, with the window open, extractor fan on high, supervising the air fryer, when the alarm went off. Mr McCullagh said that normal cooking activities in a kitchen should not trigger a smoke alarm. If this was so, then he said the landlord is not providing facilities that are fit for purpose. Mr McCullagh said his cooking actions were neither avoidable nor careless and so he should not be responsible for the call out fee cost. He highlighted that heat detectors rather than smoke detectors are better used in a kitchen environment and also pointed out this could have been a false alarm, which is not provided for in the tenancy agreement.
Mr Woods said the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement is clear that the tenant is responsible for a call out fee from its fire service contractor, especially when it was clearly one person’s responsibility, here Mr McCullagh. Mr Woods said the tenant’s only defence to this would be that the fire system was faulty. Because of this potential issue, the landlord had asked Equans to confirm whether there was any issue with the fire system equipment at the apartment at the time of the incident.
The landlord provided a copy of an email from Equans dated 18 August 2025 indicating “attending technician’s notes show the system in all probability activated due to cooking activities not a system malfunction.”
The landlord pointed out there had not been any other calls outs to this kitchen with other tenants using it either before or after this incident with Mr McCullagh on 28 July 2025. Mr McCullagh thought there may have been a call out a while ago to another apartment but could not provide details of this.
Mr Woods said that Mr McCullagh had not shown the fire system in the apartment had malfunctioned, which Mr Woods said was his only defence.
Mr McCullagh believed the landlord knew about the call out charge amount beforehand and said it should have been noted in the tenancy agreement. However, after a discussion about this, and that many other costs that are parties’ responsibilities are not necessarily specified in tenancy agreements, he accepted specifying cost amounts in a tenancy agreement could be difficult with potential changing or other costs involved. Discussion
The Fire Systems clause in the tenancy agreement is clear that call out fees are the responsibility of a tenant in behaviour setting off a smoke alarm that is avoidable or careless. What is considered avoidable or careless depends on the circumstances at the time.
Here the landlord provided additional supporting evidence confirming the fire system in the apartment was not malfunctioning and it was likely activated by cooking at the time of the incident. The landlord also indicated there had been no other call outs from others using the same kitchen before or since this incident, and that it was a one-off event. In the absence of any additional supporting evidence to the contrary from Mr McCullagh, I accept that the fire system equipment at the property was functioning properly and that the smoke alarm was likely triggered by Mr McCullagh’s cooking at the time. As the evidence was that there had been no other such call outs with use of the same kitchen before or after this incident, I find that the tenant’s use of the air fryer at the time was likely at a level sufficient to trigger the fire alarm, which is then regarded as avoidable or careless. As such, the tenant is liable for any call out fee for this, pursuant to the tenancy agreement.
Thus, I award the landlord $575.00 for the call out fire service contractor’s fee. Filing fee
Because M D Woods Holdings Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364941. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Call out fee - smoke alarm	$575.00		Call out fee - smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay MD Woods Holdings Limited $603.00, immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Woods, representing the landlord, and Mr McCullagh, the tenant, both attended the video conference/teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee in a current tenancy.
The landlord claimed $575.00 for the call out fee for the fire service to whom the landlord is contracted, when the smoke alarm in the tenant’s apartment was triggered and the fire service had to respond.
Mr Woods clarified that the correct landlord’s name should read “MD Woods Holdings Limited” rather than “The Splinter Group Limited” which is named as landlord on the tenancy agreement. Mr Woods explained he is a director of both companies and MD Woods Holdings Limited owns the apartment building in which the tenancy property is located.
It is up to the party claiming to provide sufficient evidence of their claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
Where parties dispute what occurred, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their version of events. Evidence
A clause in the tenancy agreement entitled ‘Fire Systems’ provides that the tenant shall be responsible to pay for all call out fees for fire systems, both the Fire Brigade and alarm system engineers or other costs or maintenance associated with smoke detectors or extinguishers in any instance where the avoidable or careless action of the tenant or their guests is responsible for any cost incurred in connection with the detector system.
On 28 July 2025 the fire alarm panel in Mr McCullagh’s apartment was activated. An email dated 18 August 2025 from the landlord’s fire service contractor, Equans, confirmed the fire alarm had been triggered in apartment 5 where Mr McCullagh lives, that the tenant had explained the alarm was caused by cooking smoke from an air fryer, that the smoke was subsequently cleared, and the fire alarm panel was reset. Equans charged the landlord $575.00 for this call out fee, as it was after hours. The landlord seeks to claim this from the tenant pursuant to the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement.
Mr McCullagh pointed to the part of the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement that indicated the behaviour that triggered a fire alarm would need to be avoidable or careless for the tenant to be responsible for this call out fee cost. He said that he was cooking normally in the kitchen, with the window open, extractor fan on high, supervising the air fryer, when the alarm went off. Mr McCullagh said that normal cooking activities in a kitchen should not trigger a smoke alarm. If this was so, then he said the landlord is not providing facilities that are fit for purpose. Mr McCullagh said his cooking actions were neither avoidable nor careless and so he should not be responsible for the call out fee cost. He highlighted that heat detectors rather than smoke detectors are better used in a kitchen environment and also pointed out this could have been a false alarm, which is not provided for in the tenancy agreement.
Mr Woods said the fire systems clause in the tenancy agreement is clear that the tenant is responsible for a call out fee from its fire service contractor, especially when it was clearly one person’s responsibility, here Mr McCullagh. Mr Woods said the tenant’s only defence to this would be that the fire system was faulty. Because of this potential issue, the landlord had asked Equans to confirm whether there was any issue with the fire system equipment at the apartment at the time of the incident.
The landlord provided a copy of an email from Equans dated 18 August 2025 indicating “attending technician’s notes show the system in all probability activated due to cooking activities not a system malfunction.”
The landlord pointed out there had not been any other calls outs to this kitchen with other tenants using it either before or after this incident with Mr McCullagh on 28 July 2025. Mr McCullagh thought there may have been a call out a while ago to another apartment but could not provide details of this.
Mr Woods said that Mr McCullagh had not shown the fire system in the apartment had malfunctioned, which Mr Woods said was his only defence.
Mr McCullagh believed the landlord knew about the call out charge amount beforehand and said it should have been noted in the tenancy agreement. However, after a discussion about this, and that many other costs that are parties’ responsibilities are not necessarily specified in tenancy agreements, he accepted specifying cost amounts in a tenancy agreement could be difficult with potential changing or other costs involved. Discussion
The Fire Systems clause in the tenancy agreement is clear that call out fees are the responsibility of a tenant in behaviour setting off a smoke alarm that is avoidable or careless. What is considered avoidable or careless depends on the circumstances at the time.
Here the landlord provided additional supporting evidence confirming the fire system in the apartment was not malfunctioning and it was likely activated by cooking at the time of the incident. The landlord also indicated there had been no other call outs from others using the same kitchen before or since this incident, and that it was a one-off event. In the absence of any additional supporting evidence to the contrary from Mr McCullagh, I accept that the fire system equipment at the property was functioning properly and that the smoke alarm was likely triggered by Mr McCullagh’s cooking at the time. As the evidence was that there had been no other such call outs with use of the same kitchen before or after this incident, I find that the tenant’s use of the air fryer at the time was likely at a level sufficient to trigger the fire alarm, which is then regarded as avoidable or careless. As such, the tenant is liable for any call out fee for this, pursuant to the tenancy agreement.
Thus, I award the landlord $575.00 for the call out fire service contractor’s fee. Filing fee
Because M D Woods Holdings Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364941 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 5, 11 Johnston Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364941 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 5, 11 Johnston Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.