What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917842?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirstin Leigh Beckett at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South

How much money was awarded in case 4917842?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917842?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917842?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirstin Leigh Beckett at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South

How much money was awarded in case 4917842?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917842?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4917842 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917842 — net $1,255.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$435.00	Rent arrears
Exemplary damages-smoke alarm	$800.00	smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,255.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,255.44

Order

The tenancy of Kirstin Leigh Beckett at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jinjer Properties Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 22 July 2024.
Kirstin Leigh Beckett must pay Jinjer Properties Limited $1,255.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 July 2024.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Microsoft Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The landlord confirmed that the number provided for the tenant was correct. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, breach of the tenant obligations regarding smoke alarms, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing. Termination - section 55(1)(a) RTA
Section 55(1)(a) RTA provides for the termination of the tenancy where rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The rent was not 21 days or more in arrears on the date this application was filed (17 June 2024).The application is dismissed. Termination -section 56 RTA
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 landlord has served two 14 day breach notices on the tenant.
The first notice is dated 6 February 2024.The notice records that the tenant has not kept to their responsibilities under s.40 RTA.
Section 40 RTA requires the tenant, amongst other things, to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, comply with smoke alarm requirements, not damage the property or use the premises for any unlawful purpose.
The first notice served on the tenant alleges in broad terms that the tenant has not kept the premises clean, has damaged the property, removed the smoke alarm, has drug use paraphernalia.
The notice gave the tenant until 22 February 2024, to remedy the breaches.
The landlord evidence was that by 22 February 2024, the smoke alarm had been reinstated, the shower curtain reinstated and the drug paraphernalia had been removed.
Some rubbish had been removed, but a substantial amount remains nearly 5 months later. The associated smell is such that other neighbours have complained. It is difficult to see the floor inside the premises as a result of the rubbish piling up.
Would it be inequitable to refuse to grant the termination order?
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. In this case, there is an ongoing history of rubbish and the premises not being kept reasonably clean and tidy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. In this case, the 14 day breach warning has not been complied with nearly five months later. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The previous failure to comply makes it unlikely that the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. A breach of this nature is unlikely to be inadvertent . e. The conduct of the landlord is not relevant for the purposes of this application. f. The gravity of the breach. The very poor standard of cleanliness is no doubt having a detrimental effect on the premises as well as disturbing the neighbours. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. An ongoing damaging and serious breach of this nature is such that termination of the tenancy is not disproportionate.
The tenancy is terminated as a result of the breach of s.56 RTA. I am accordingly not required to consider the other landlord termination applications.
The landlord has provided evidence of the rent arrears. The tenant is ordered to pay arrears of $435.00 being rent to the end of the tenancy.
Jinjer Properties Limited 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 has removed the smoke alarms prior to the 14 day breach notice dated 6 February 2024 being served on them. Whilst they have complied with the notice by reinstating them, the initial removal was 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.
The nature of the removal makes it clear that this was an intentional act by the tenant. The potential consequences of which could have been life threatening .The interests of both the public, the landlord and tenants generally is in having smoke alarms present. I must weigh that with the fact that the tenant has reinstated the smoke alarm. Taking all of those factors into account., I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and the tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $800.00.
As Jinjer Properties Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917842 — net $1,255.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$435.00	Rent arrears
Exemplary damages-smoke alarm	$800.00	smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,255.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,255.44

Order

The tenancy of Kirstin Leigh Beckett at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jinjer Properties Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 22 July 2024.
Kirstin Leigh Beckett must pay Jinjer Properties Limited $1,255.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 July 2024.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Microsoft Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The landlord confirmed that the number provided for the tenant was correct. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, breach of the tenant obligations regarding smoke alarms, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing. Termination - section 55(1)(a) RTA
Section 55(1)(a) RTA provides for the termination of the tenancy where rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The rent was not 21 days or more in arrears on the date this application was filed (17 June 2024).The application is dismissed. Termination -section 56 RTA
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 landlord has served two 14 day breach notices on the tenant.
The first notice is dated 6 February 2024.The notice records that the tenant has not kept to their responsibilities under s.40 RTA.
Section 40 RTA requires the tenant, amongst other things, to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, comply with smoke alarm requirements, not damage the property or use the premises for any unlawful purpose.
The first notice served on the tenant alleges in broad terms that the tenant has not kept the premises clean, has damaged the property, removed the smoke alarm, has drug use paraphernalia.
The notice gave the tenant until 22 February 2024, to remedy the breaches.
The landlord evidence was that by 22 February 2024, the smoke alarm had been reinstated, the shower curtain reinstated and the drug paraphernalia had been removed.
Some rubbish had been removed, but a substantial amount remains nearly 5 months later. The associated smell is such that other neighbours have complained. It is difficult to see the floor inside the premises as a result of the rubbish piling up.
Would it be inequitable to refuse to grant the termination order?
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. In this case, there is an ongoing history of rubbish and the premises not being kept reasonably clean and tidy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. In this case, the 14 day breach warning has not been complied with nearly five months later. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The previous failure to comply makes it unlikely that the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. A breach of this nature is unlikely to be inadvertent . e. The conduct of the landlord is not relevant for the purposes of this application. f. The gravity of the breach. The very poor standard of cleanliness is no doubt having a detrimental effect on the premises as well as disturbing the neighbours. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. An ongoing damaging and serious breach of this nature is such that termination of the tenancy is not disproportionate.
The tenancy is terminated as a result of the breach of s.56 RTA. I am accordingly not required to consider the other landlord termination applications.
The landlord has provided evidence of the rent arrears. The tenant is ordered to pay arrears of $435.00 being rent to the end of the tenancy.
Jinjer Properties Limited 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 has removed the smoke alarms prior to the 14 day breach notice dated 6 February 2024 being served on them. Whilst they have complied with the notice by reinstating them, the initial removal was 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.
The nature of the removal makes it clear that this was an intentional act by the tenant. The potential consequences of which could have been life threatening .The interests of both the public, the landlord and tenants generally is in having smoke alarms present. I must weigh that with the fact that the tenant has reinstated the smoke alarm. Taking all of those factors into account., I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate and the tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $800.00.
As Jinjer Properties Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917842 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917842 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 32 Wharfe Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions