What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4449719 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4449719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4449719?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4449719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853698-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4449719 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4449719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4449719?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4449719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853698-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 1 Cheval Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4449719 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The applicant applied for reimbursement of the insurance excess for quote AQ014459 of $1,250.00 and reimbursement of quote AQ014652 for $1,600.00. Both of these insurance claims were for replacement of damaged carpet.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed the tenant had a dog at the premises that caused damage to the carpet in bedroom 3 that was not covered by insurance. Further the applicant claimed the tenant caused further damage to the carpet in the remaining rooms in the house.

The applicant provided evidence of the tenant causing damage to the carpet in bedroom 3, by having a dog that was not permitted under the tenancy agreement that had urinated on the carpet in bedroom 3. This damage was more than fair wear and tear.

The applicant also provided evidence that it had made an insurance claim for this damage that was declined.

The applicant was unable to produce any evidence of the carpet having been replaced in bedroom 3 and could not produce any invoices to support this claim. It is therefore dismissed.

On 23 August 2023, Adjudicator Kee issued an order that stated “the landlord did not have evidence that the carpets other than in bedroom 3 were damaged during the tenancy. None of the photographs proved any damage and Ms Toparea says the post-inspection report does not refer to any damage. There is nothing on the file from the property manager or a carpet contactor that any other room’s carpet has been damaged”. Consequently, Adjudicator Kee issued an order requiring the applicant to file evidence in the Tribunal, by 13 September 2023, that proves the carpets were damaged throughout the house and the carpets have been replaced or repaired or an insurance claim to undertake this work has been approved.

No further evidence was produced by the applicant by 13 September 2023 deadline nor by the property manager that appeared before me today.

The application has been on foot since 25 November 2022. The applicant has failed to produce any evidence to support its claims to date and its property manager has confirmed it is unlikely such evidence exists.

Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant also provided evidence that it had made an insurance claim for this damage that was declined.

The applicant was unable to produce any evidence of the carpet having been replaced in bedroom 3 and could not produce any invoices to support this claim. It is therefore dismissed.

No further evidence was produced by the applicant by 13 September 2023 deadline nor by the property manager that appeared before me today.

Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4449719 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Cheval Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4449719 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Cheval Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions