What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191801?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, this is a periodic tenancy and it is not a service tenancy.

How much money was awarded in case 5191801?

Smoke Alarms: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191801?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191801?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, this is a periodic tenancy and it is not a service tenancy.

How much money was awarded in case 5191801?

Smoke Alarms: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191801?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Dudley Crescent, Cable Bay, Cable Bay 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191801 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191801 — net $747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$720.00	34. In this instance, the landlord did not ignore their obligations in respect of smoke alarms.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$747.00

Order

By declaration, this is a periodic tenancy and it is not a service tenancy.
The Taipa Area School Board is to pay Jessie Moran $747.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

Reasons

Background

Ms Moran is a teacher at the Taipa Area School.
In April 2024, Ms Moran was offered a tenancy at one of the school’s properties, 6 Dudley Crescent.
There are two written tenancy agreements for the tenancy. One, on a standard Tenancy Services template, was sent to as a ‘blank’ to Ms Moran with other documents. Ms Moran completed parts of the agreement. She recalls that the school’s caretaker completed other parts of it when they met to handover the keys. Ms Moran signed this agreement but it was never counter-signed by the school.
The other tenancy agreement is a document prepared by the school that it uses for all of its tenancies. That agreement was signed by both parties.
Both parties understood that they had entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy with the opportunity to “review” at the end of the one-year term.
On 18 February 2025, Ms Moran wrote to the school asking for an extension of the tenancy, preferably for a further two years.
On 3 March 2025 the school replied, stating: “Due to the appointment of a new Principal, we kindly ask that you vacate the property by 13 April 2025”.
Ms Moran’s application challenges the landlord’s attempt to terminate the tenancy and raises issues relating to smoke alarms, and to an entry into the premises that occurred on 25 February 2025.
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 1 May 2025. Ms Moran attended the hearing and was supported by her daughter. Mr Vercammen, Mr Tansey, and Ms Baker attended on behalf of the Taipa Area School. Status of tenancy, termination
At the hearing Ms Moran said that she is still living at the house and that she wants to remain.
The school said that they want Ms Moran’s tenancy to end so they can provide the house to the new principal.
I noted above that both parties understood that they entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy beginning on 19 April 2024.
I do not think that the written agreements achieve this, due to some administrative issues.
Firstly, there are two written tenancy agreements. The agreement that is on the Tenancy Services template does not record a fixed term tenancy.
Secondly, the school’s agreement, which was signed by both parties, states that it is “a tenancy with a term of 1 year the end date for this tenancy is 19 April 2025” but it also gives the landlord the power to terminate the tenancy by 24 hours’ notice in certain circumstances. By definition, a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. 1 1 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
It is arguable that this was always a periodic tenancy. Even if it was a fixed term tenancy, fixed term tenancies automatically become period tenancies at the end of the fixed term unless either the landlord or tenant gives a valid notice to terminate the tenancy before the end of the fixed term. 2
In this instance, the landlord did not give an effective notice. Their attempted notice on 3 March gave the wrong date for the end of the fixed term tenancy. Ms Moran was not obliged to vacate the premises on 13 April, and she was entitled to ignore the landlord’s notice.
Whether or not Ms Moran was in a fixed term tenancy, she is now in a periodic tenancy.
Landlords may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant 90-days’ notice in writing. 3
There are special provisions for terminating a “service tenancy”. Given that Ms Moran is an employee of her landlord, for the sake of clarity I will address the question of whether this is a service tenancy.
A service tenancy is defined as: 4 A tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of, a contract of service [...] between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor [...] and includes: [...] any tenancy granted by the Crown as an incident of a contract of service between a school board and an employee or contractor of the school board
In this instance: a. Ms Moran was not provided the tenancy as a term of her employment. She has worked for the school for several years and was living in another property before she moved in to 6 Dudley Crescent in April 2024. b. The school owns several properties. Some are used by school staff and some are not. c. Ms Moran approached the Board when she noticed that this house was vacant. Ms Moran paid a standard rent for the house, and she paid it directly to the school, not by deduction from her wages. d. Although Ms Moran became aware of the house through her employment, and obviously her employment with the school was relevant in her securing the tenancy, it is in all other respects unrelated to her employment. 2 Section 60A RTA 3 Section 51(1) RTA 4 Section 2 RTA
My finding is that this is not a service tenancy. The tenancy was not “an incident of” her employment with the school.
In summary, this is a “normal” periodic tenancy. It will continue until it is ended by lawful notice (or by an order from the Tenancy Tribunal). Smoke alarms
Ms Moran said that at the start of her tenancy there was only one smoke alarm, in a bedroom. There was a smoke alarm bracket on the ceiling in another bedroom and in the hallway, but no alarms in the brackets. There were marks on the ceiling in the third bedroom where a bracket had previously been.
Ms Moran raised this issue in November 2024 and the landlord promptly provided additional smoke alarms.
Mr Vercammen said that: a. Compliant smoke alarms were fitted in January 2024. This is confirmed by emails from the school to All Faze (a local electrician) and an invoice from All Faze. b. They were not aware of any issues with the smoke alarms at the start of this tenancy in April. Mr Vercammen acknowledged that the school did not carry out an entry inspection for this tenancy. c. They were not made aware of the problem until November 2024.
There was a brief tenancy before Ms Moran’s tenancy, from January to April 2024.
Ms Moran provided a copy of the property inspection report on the Tenancy Services agreement that she signed on 18 April 2024. Ms Moran confirmed that she completed the report on that day. The report notes “no smoke alarm” in bedroom 1 and bedroom 3.
I accept Ms Moran’s oral and written evidence that there was only one smoke alarm in the house at the start of the tenancy, and this remained the case until November 2024.
This does not meet the legal requirement of having a working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within 3m of each bedroom door.
Failing to meet the requirement for smoke alarms is an unlawful act. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 5 Section 45(1)(ba) a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance, the landlord did not ignore their obligations in respect of smoke alarms. The situation only arose because they failed to carry out an entry inspection. Had they been aware of the problem they would have remedied it promptly – this is proven by their actions in January and November. Although the landlord is in breach and it is appropriate to award exemplary damages, this is a significant mitigating factor.
I will award exemplary damages of $720. Entry on 25 February 2025
It is not disputed that the school (Ms Baker) entered the house on 25 February with a prospective new tenant (an applicant for the position of principal).
Ms Moran was aware of this entry and had consented to it.
Ms Moran’s concerns about this incident were that: a. She had agreed to different school employee (Ms Smith) showing the prospective new principal around. She had not agreed to Ms Baker doing it. b. The prospective new principal did not remove her shoes when she entered the house, she took photographs, and she opened cupboards and doors.
I am only able to address this issue within the legal framework of the landlord’s right to enter the premises in certain circumstances, and the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I am satisfied that: a. The entry was lawful. The law states that “the landlord” has the right to enter the premises, with the consent of the tenant, for the purpose of showing the premises to a prospective tenant. 7 The definition of “landlord” includes an agent of the landlord. The school intended to send Ms Smith to the property, but she was away sick that day. It would be too restrictive to interpret Ms Moran’s consent as consent only to Ms Smith and not to any other suitable employee / representative of the landlord. 6 Section 109 RTA 7 Section 48(3)(a) RTA b. The interference with Ms Moran’s peace and privacy was not unreasonable. Ms Baker stated that the prospective principal only took one photograph, from the outside of the property. There is no evidence to contradict this statement. Ms Baker acknowledged that the principal briefly looked inside several cupboards. In my view this is not beyond the parameters of an entry of this type – cupboards and storage at the property is legitimately part of what a prospective tenant wants to get an understanding of. The school apologised to Ms Moran for the principal not removing her shoes (Ms Baker confirmed that she removed hers), and I agree that this is the appropriate redress for that issue.
In summary my finding is that the landlord did not breach any legal duty in respect of this entry and there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Outcome, filing fee
Ms Moran is in a ‘standard’ periodic tenancy, which will continue until it is lawfully terminated.
The landlord failed to comply with the regulations in respect of smoke alarms, and it must pay exemplary damages of $720.00.
The entry on 25 February 2025 was not unlawful.
Ms Moran has been partially successful in her application, and I will also award her the filing fee. 8

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191801 — net $747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$720.00	34. In this instance, the landlord did not ignore their obligations in respect of smoke alarms.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$747.00

Order

By declaration, this is a periodic tenancy and it is not a service tenancy.
The Taipa Area School Board is to pay Jessie Moran $747.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

Reasons

Background

Ms Moran is a teacher at the Taipa Area School.
In April 2024, Ms Moran was offered a tenancy at one of the school’s properties, 6 Dudley Crescent.
There are two written tenancy agreements for the tenancy. One, on a standard Tenancy Services template, was sent to as a ‘blank’ to Ms Moran with other documents. Ms Moran completed parts of the agreement. She recalls that the school’s caretaker completed other parts of it when they met to handover the keys. Ms Moran signed this agreement but it was never counter-signed by the school.
The other tenancy agreement is a document prepared by the school that it uses for all of its tenancies. That agreement was signed by both parties.
Both parties understood that they had entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy with the opportunity to “review” at the end of the one-year term.
On 18 February 2025, Ms Moran wrote to the school asking for an extension of the tenancy, preferably for a further two years.
On 3 March 2025 the school replied, stating: “Due to the appointment of a new Principal, we kindly ask that you vacate the property by 13 April 2025”.
Ms Moran’s application challenges the landlord’s attempt to terminate the tenancy and raises issues relating to smoke alarms, and to an entry into the premises that occurred on 25 February 2025.
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 1 May 2025. Ms Moran attended the hearing and was supported by her daughter. Mr Vercammen, Mr Tansey, and Ms Baker attended on behalf of the Taipa Area School. Status of tenancy, termination
At the hearing Ms Moran said that she is still living at the house and that she wants to remain.
The school said that they want Ms Moran’s tenancy to end so they can provide the house to the new principal.
I noted above that both parties understood that they entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy beginning on 19 April 2024.
I do not think that the written agreements achieve this, due to some administrative issues.
Firstly, there are two written tenancy agreements. The agreement that is on the Tenancy Services template does not record a fixed term tenancy.
Secondly, the school’s agreement, which was signed by both parties, states that it is “a tenancy with a term of 1 year the end date for this tenancy is 19 April 2025” but it also gives the landlord the power to terminate the tenancy by 24 hours’ notice in certain circumstances. By definition, a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. 1 1 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
It is arguable that this was always a periodic tenancy. Even if it was a fixed term tenancy, fixed term tenancies automatically become period tenancies at the end of the fixed term unless either the landlord or tenant gives a valid notice to terminate the tenancy before the end of the fixed term. 2
In this instance, the landlord did not give an effective notice. Their attempted notice on 3 March gave the wrong date for the end of the fixed term tenancy. Ms Moran was not obliged to vacate the premises on 13 April, and she was entitled to ignore the landlord’s notice.
Whether or not Ms Moran was in a fixed term tenancy, she is now in a periodic tenancy.
Landlords may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant 90-days’ notice in writing. 3
There are special provisions for terminating a “service tenancy”. Given that Ms Moran is an employee of her landlord, for the sake of clarity I will address the question of whether this is a service tenancy.
A service tenancy is defined as: 4 A tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of, a contract of service [...] between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor [...] and includes: [...] any tenancy granted by the Crown as an incident of a contract of service between a school board and an employee or contractor of the school board
In this instance: a. Ms Moran was not provided the tenancy as a term of her employment. She has worked for the school for several years and was living in another property before she moved in to 6 Dudley Crescent in April 2024. b. The school owns several properties. Some are used by school staff and some are not. c. Ms Moran approached the Board when she noticed that this house was vacant. Ms Moran paid a standard rent for the house, and she paid it directly to the school, not by deduction from her wages. d. Although Ms Moran became aware of the house through her employment, and obviously her employment with the school was relevant in her securing the tenancy, it is in all other respects unrelated to her employment. 2 Section 60A RTA 3 Section 51(1) RTA 4 Section 2 RTA
My finding is that this is not a service tenancy. The tenancy was not “an incident of” her employment with the school.
In summary, this is a “normal” periodic tenancy. It will continue until it is ended by lawful notice (or by an order from the Tenancy Tribunal). Smoke alarms
Ms Moran said that at the start of her tenancy there was only one smoke alarm, in a bedroom. There was a smoke alarm bracket on the ceiling in another bedroom and in the hallway, but no alarms in the brackets. There were marks on the ceiling in the third bedroom where a bracket had previously been.
Ms Moran raised this issue in November 2024 and the landlord promptly provided additional smoke alarms.
Mr Vercammen said that: a. Compliant smoke alarms were fitted in January 2024. This is confirmed by emails from the school to All Faze (a local electrician) and an invoice from All Faze. b. They were not aware of any issues with the smoke alarms at the start of this tenancy in April. Mr Vercammen acknowledged that the school did not carry out an entry inspection for this tenancy. c. They were not made aware of the problem until November 2024.
There was a brief tenancy before Ms Moran’s tenancy, from January to April 2024.
Ms Moran provided a copy of the property inspection report on the Tenancy Services agreement that she signed on 18 April 2024. Ms Moran confirmed that she completed the report on that day. The report notes “no smoke alarm” in bedroom 1 and bedroom 3.
I accept Ms Moran’s oral and written evidence that there was only one smoke alarm in the house at the start of the tenancy, and this remained the case until November 2024.
This does not meet the legal requirement of having a working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within 3m of each bedroom door.
Failing to meet the requirement for smoke alarms is an unlawful act. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 5 Section 45(1)(ba) a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance, the landlord did not ignore their obligations in respect of smoke alarms. The situation only arose because they failed to carry out an entry inspection. Had they been aware of the problem they would have remedied it promptly – this is proven by their actions in January and November. Although the landlord is in breach and it is appropriate to award exemplary damages, this is a significant mitigating factor.
I will award exemplary damages of $720. Entry on 25 February 2025
It is not disputed that the school (Ms Baker) entered the house on 25 February with a prospective new tenant (an applicant for the position of principal).
Ms Moran was aware of this entry and had consented to it.
Ms Moran’s concerns about this incident were that: a. She had agreed to different school employee (Ms Smith) showing the prospective new principal around. She had not agreed to Ms Baker doing it. b. The prospective new principal did not remove her shoes when she entered the house, she took photographs, and she opened cupboards and doors.
I am only able to address this issue within the legal framework of the landlord’s right to enter the premises in certain circumstances, and the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I am satisfied that: a. The entry was lawful. The law states that “the landlord” has the right to enter the premises, with the consent of the tenant, for the purpose of showing the premises to a prospective tenant. 7 The definition of “landlord” includes an agent of the landlord. The school intended to send Ms Smith to the property, but she was away sick that day. It would be too restrictive to interpret Ms Moran’s consent as consent only to Ms Smith and not to any other suitable employee / representative of the landlord. 6 Section 109 RTA 7 Section 48(3)(a) RTA b. The interference with Ms Moran’s peace and privacy was not unreasonable. Ms Baker stated that the prospective principal only took one photograph, from the outside of the property. There is no evidence to contradict this statement. Ms Baker acknowledged that the principal briefly looked inside several cupboards. In my view this is not beyond the parameters of an entry of this type – cupboards and storage at the property is legitimately part of what a prospective tenant wants to get an understanding of. The school apologised to Ms Moran for the principal not removing her shoes (Ms Baker confirmed that she removed hers), and I agree that this is the appropriate redress for that issue.
In summary my finding is that the landlord did not breach any legal duty in respect of this entry and there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Outcome, filing fee
Ms Moran is in a ‘standard’ periodic tenancy, which will continue until it is lawfully terminated.
The landlord failed to comply with the regulations in respect of smoke alarms, and it must pay exemplary damages of $720.00.
The entry on 25 February 2025 was not unlawful.
Ms Moran has been partially successful in her application, and I will also award her the filing fee. 8

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191801 — Smoke alarms at 6 Dudley Crescent, Cable Bay, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191801 — Smoke alarms at 6 Dudley Crescent, Cable Bay, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions