How much money was awarded in case 5471661?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $401.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471661?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13756072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5471661?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $401.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471661?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13756072-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471661 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5471661 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471661 — net $429.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Call out costs for smoke alarm fault on 19 December 2024	$401.35	Call out costs for smoke alarm fault on 19 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$429.35
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$429.35

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Deok Hwan Yun must pay [The landlord] $429.35 from the bond, as set out in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $429.35 Deok Hwan Yun: $1,170.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.

The landlord applies for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and partial refund of the bond.

The tenant applied for compensation, damages, exemplary damages reimbursement of the filing fee and full refund of the bond. LANDLORD’S CLAIM

Is the tenant responsible for the call out fee invoiced to him on 13 March 2025?

On 19 December 2024 at 8:00am First Fire Systems Limited (FFSL) was called out to the tenant’s apartment because it received a default signal from the Fire Alarm Monitoring Agent. When it attended the call out, it entered the tenant’s apartment and on investigation found a “button was jammed due to the device being tampered with by being removed”.

The tenant claims he has never touched the smoke alarm and had not tampered with it and questions why it took so long for him to be informed of the call out and that someone had entered his apartment, without notice, when he was not home.

The landlord explained that FFSL did not invoice the Body Corporate (BC) until 13 March 2025 and that the BC invoiced the landlord and the landlord invoiced the tenant the same day. The landlord confirmed that until it received the invoice, it had been unaware of the fault or the call out.

The finding in the FFSL report is clear, the fault was not a fault the device just developed, it was a fault that had resulted from the tenant, or someone in his apartment with his consent, tampering with it.

On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the cause of the damage described in the FFSL report, as this a professional fire service provider that has specialist knowledge in fire alarm systems, over the denial of the tenant who does not want to have to pay the call out fee. I find FFSL’s evidence compelling and therefore award the landlord reimbursement of the cost of the call out, being $401.35. TENANT’S CLAIM

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Deok Hwan Yun claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 19 December 2024, when FFSL entered the apartment to investigate and remediate the smoke alarm fault.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord confirmed it was unaware of the fault or FFSL having entered the premise until it received the call out invoice from the BC. The BC had authorised FFSL to enter the apartment as the faulty fire alarm was considered an emergency.

A landlord is lawfully entitled to enter a premise without notice or consent in an emergency (Refer to s48(2)(a) of the RTA). Based on the evidence provided by the parties, I am satisfied that no unlawful entry has occurred and dismiss the tenants’ claim for failure to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Because Deok Hwan Yunhas not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claim I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.

The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

The tenant withdrew his application for name suppression during the hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471661 — net $429.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Call out costs for smoke alarm fault on 19 December 2024	$401.35	Call out costs for smoke alarm fault on 19 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$429.35
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$429.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Deok Hwan Yun must pay [The landlord] $429.35 from the bond, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $429.35 Deok Hwan Yun: $1,170.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The landlord applies for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and partial refund of the bond.
The tenant applied for compensation, damages, exemplary damages reimbursement of the filing fee and full refund of the bond. LANDLORD’S CLAIM

Is the tenant responsible for the call out fee invoiced to him on 13 March 2025?

On 19 December 2024 at 8:00am First Fire Systems Limited (FFSL) was called out to the tenant’s apartment because it received a default signal from the Fire Alarm Monitoring Agent. When it attended the call out, it entered the tenant’s apartment and on investigation found a “button was jammed due to the device being tampered with by being removed”.
The tenant claims he has never touched the smoke alarm and had not tampered with it and questions why it took so long for him to be informed of the call out and that someone had entered his apartment, without notice, when he was not home.
The landlord explained that FFSL did not invoice the Body Corporate (BC) until 13 March 2025 and that the BC invoiced the landlord and the landlord invoiced the tenant the same day. The landlord confirmed that until it received the invoice, it had been unaware of the fault or the call out.
The finding in the FFSL report is clear, the fault was not a fault the device just developed, it was a fault that had resulted from the tenant, or someone in his apartment with his consent, tampering with it.
On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the cause of the damage described in the FFSL report, as this a professional fire service provider that has specialist knowledge in fire alarm systems, over the denial of the tenant who does not want to have to pay the call out fee. I find FFSL’s evidence compelling and therefore award the landlord reimbursement of the cost of the call out, being $401.35. TENANT’S CLAIM

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Deok Hwan Yun claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 19 December 2024, when FFSL entered the apartment to investigate and remediate the smoke alarm fault.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed it was unaware of the fault or FFSL having entered the premise until it received the call out invoice from the BC. The BC had authorised FFSL to enter the apartment as the faulty fire alarm was considered an emergency.
A landlord is lawfully entitled to enter a premise without notice or consent in an emergency (Refer to s48(2)(a) of the RTA). Based on the evidence provided by the parties, I am satisfied that no unlawful entry has occurred and dismiss the tenants’ claim for failure to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Deok Hwan Yunhas not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claim I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The tenant withdrew his application for name suppression during the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471661 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471661 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the call out fee invoiced to him on 13 March 2025?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the call out fee invoiced to him on 13 March 2025?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions