What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855468?

The tribunal order states: Milika Viliami must pay Champagne Homes Limited $2,284.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4855468?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10388616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855468?

The tribunal order states: Milika Viliami must pay Champagne Homes Limited $2,284.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4855468?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10388616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

192A Woodham Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855468 — net $2,284.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024	$1,250.00	Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024
Water rates (to 28 May 2024	$195.62	Water rates (to 28 May 2024
Replace smoke alarms	$218.50	Replace smoke alarms
Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms	$600.00	Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,284.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,284.56

Order

Milika Viliami must pay Champagne Homes Limited $2,284.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024)$1,250.00 Water rates (to 28 May 2024)$195.62 Replace smoke alarms$218.50 Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,284.56 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,284.56
The landlord’s other claims for compensation and for termination of the tenancy are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent and water rates when they fell due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 February 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
However, the landlord did not establish that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The arrears are less than 2 weeks rent. They have arisen because of unexpected family related costs the tenant incurred early this year. She has otherwise paid her weekly rent as it falls due but has had difficulty catching up. She gave evidence that she now has assistance to pay the outstanding rent and water rates.
The landlord also served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 April 2024. That notice listed 9 alleged breaches of the tenant obligations. Only two were established at the hearing, having 2 kittens at the premises and removal of smoke alarms. The tenant has removed one of the kittens and said that she will re-home the other. The smoke alarms were replaced by the landlord on the same day that the 14-day notice was issued, so the tenant could not remedy the breach herself. The landlord did not establish that it would be appropriate to terminate the tenancy for the either of the established breaches in the 5 April 2024 notice.
The application for termination is dismissed. The tenant should be aware that the Tribunal may be more likely to terminate the tenancy if these arrears are not paid promptly and/or she falls into arrears again.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing.
The rent arrears are $1,250.00 and outstanding water charges are $195.62. The tenant acknowledged that those amounts are owed.

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.
A shower dome was cracked during the tenancy. The landlord says that it had been installed correctly and the tenant must have damaged it. The tenant claims that the dome fell when she was in the shower and cracked. The tenant did not advise the landlord of the damage when it occurred. She should have. See s40 (1)(d) RTA.
The landlord provided an email from an installer stating that he had viewed the dome and it has been installed correctly. The installer viewed the shower after the damage and after the tenant had pushed the dome back into place. The installer could not say what might have caused the damage. I find that the damage was not caused as a result of careless use or an intentional act by the tenant. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Smoke Alarms
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or 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 removed two smoke alarms at the premises. She said that she removed them because they were beeping and she thought she could replace the batteries. She had to cut a wire to the remove or disable the alarms. She did not advise the landlord that she had removed the alarms, or that the alarms had been beeping. I find that the tenant has 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.
Smoke Alarms are an important safety feature in any home. There is a public interest in ensuring that both landlords and tenants comply with their obligations in respect of smoke alarms. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages when a party intentionally disconnects or removes a smoke alarm, as in this case. I award exemplary damages of $600.00.
I also award compensation of $218.50 being the cost incurred by the landlord to reinstate the alarms. The landlord provided an invoice from an electrician to establish the cost claimed.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
I have declined the tenant’s request for suppression of her details because she was not substantially successful in the defending the claims. See s95A Residential Tenancies Act. She did defend some of the claims, but overall, I consider that the landlord was the substantially successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855468 — net $2,284.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024	$1,250.00	Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024
Water rates (to 28 May 2024	$195.62	Water rates (to 28 May 2024
Replace smoke alarms	$218.50	Replace smoke alarms
Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms	$600.00	Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,284.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,284.56

Order

Milika Viliami must pay Champagne Homes Limited $2,284.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 28 May 2024)$1,250.00 Water rates (to 28 May 2024)$195.62 Replace smoke alarms$218.50 Exemplary Damages - Smoke Alarms$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,284.56 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,284.56
The landlord’s other claims for compensation and for termination of the tenancy are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay rent and water rates when they fell due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 February 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
However, the landlord did not establish that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The arrears are less than 2 weeks rent. They have arisen because of unexpected family related costs the tenant incurred early this year. She has otherwise paid her weekly rent as it falls due but has had difficulty catching up. She gave evidence that she now has assistance to pay the outstanding rent and water rates.
The landlord also served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 April 2024. That notice listed 9 alleged breaches of the tenant obligations. Only two were established at the hearing, having 2 kittens at the premises and removal of smoke alarms. The tenant has removed one of the kittens and said that she will re-home the other. The smoke alarms were replaced by the landlord on the same day that the 14-day notice was issued, so the tenant could not remedy the breach herself. The landlord did not establish that it would be appropriate to terminate the tenancy for the either of the established breaches in the 5 April 2024 notice.
The application for termination is dismissed. The tenant should be aware that the Tribunal may be more likely to terminate the tenancy if these arrears are not paid promptly and/or she falls into arrears again.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing.
The rent arrears are $1,250.00 and outstanding water charges are $195.62. The tenant acknowledged that those amounts are owed.

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.
A shower dome was cracked during the tenancy. The landlord says that it had been installed correctly and the tenant must have damaged it. The tenant claims that the dome fell when she was in the shower and cracked. The tenant did not advise the landlord of the damage when it occurred. She should have. See s40 (1)(d) RTA.
The landlord provided an email from an installer stating that he had viewed the dome and it has been installed correctly. The installer viewed the shower after the damage and after the tenant had pushed the dome back into place. The installer could not say what might have caused the damage. I find that the damage was not caused as a result of careless use or an intentional act by the tenant. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Smoke Alarms
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or 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 removed two smoke alarms at the premises. She said that she removed them because they were beeping and she thought she could replace the batteries. She had to cut a wire to the remove or disable the alarms. She did not advise the landlord that she had removed the alarms, or that the alarms had been beeping. I find that the tenant has 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.
Smoke Alarms are an important safety feature in any home. There is a public interest in ensuring that both landlords and tenants comply with their obligations in respect of smoke alarms. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages when a party intentionally disconnects or removes a smoke alarm, as in this case. I award exemplary damages of $600.00.
I also award compensation of $218.50 being the cost incurred by the landlord to reinstate the alarms. The landlord provided an invoice from an electrician to establish the cost claimed.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
I have declined the tenant’s request for suppression of her details because she was not substantially successful in the defending the claims. See s95A Residential Tenancies Act. She did defend some of the claims, but overall, I consider that the landlord was the substantially successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855468 — Rent arrears at 192A Woodham Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855468 — Rent arrears at 192A Woodham Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions