What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4468921 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4468921?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468921?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4468921 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4468921?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468921?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4468921 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 th August 2023.
The parties first appeared on 19 th January 2023 before me. On that date, I granted the landlord’s application for termination of tenancy.
The landlord was awarded $8,327.14 for rent arrears to 31 st January 2023.
The bond was refunded to the landlord.
The landlord had anticipated that there would be further claims against the tenant once the landlord took back possession of the premises.
However, at the hearing, the landlord confirmed that he did not wish to pursue any further claims against the tenant.
The tenant had made a cross-application against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages. They were for: a. Compensation for the landlord storing three containers and a campervan on the tenant’s “proper driveway”; 4468921, 44789112 b. Compensation for the loss incurred when the tenant sold a lawnmower that had been purchased specifically in anticipation of a longer-term tenancy at the premises; c. Compensation for having to move out much earlier than anticipated; and d. Refund of all rent due to the tenant’s driveway being unlawful. Background
The tenancy premises is surrounded by farmland on three sides and a road on one side. The landlord owns the surrounding farmland adjacent to two sides of the tenancy premises.
The tenancy premises has an older driveway which was designated as the tenant’s driveway.
There was another “newer” driveway which the landlord used to access his farm as storing his three containers and a campervan.
The tenant contented that the tenant’s driveway was unconsented and unlawful and claimed that the landlord’s newer driveway should have been the tenant’s proper driveway. Compensation for landlord’s goods stored on the tenant’s “proper” driveway
The tenant sought $9,750.00 for storage fees for the landlord’s property being on the newer driveway.
However, the tenant acknowledged that the driveway in question was never part of his original tenancy.
Although the tenant contented that the newer driveway was the tenant’s proper driveway, I find that there was no agreement at any stage for the tenant to use that driveway exclusively.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the newer driveway should have been the tenant’s “proper driveway”.
There is no basis for claiming compensation. This claim is dismissed. Compensation for loss incurred from sale of the tenant’s lawnmower
The tenant sought $4,959.00 for the loss incurred on a specialised lawnmower purchased by the tenant specifically for mowing the lawns at the premises.
The tenant accepted that it was the tenant’s responsibility to do the lawns.
The tenant originally had a contractor who was doing the lawns but that particular contractor was unwilling to do the lawns during winter.
The tenant said that there was an understanding that he would become a longer-term tenant and that he invested in a special lawnmower that was fit for purpose with the premises’ particular steep slope. 4468921, 44789113
However, things did not work out between the parties and the tenancy ended earlier than the tenant had hoped.
However, as there was never any actual agreement for a “longer term tenancy”, the landlord is not responsible for any losses incurred by the tenant from investing in his own lawnmower.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation for the tenancy ending earlier
The tenant sought $1,000.00 as compensation for having to move much earlier than anticipated originally.
As above, there was never any actual agreement for any longer-term tenancy.
The landlord is not liable to pay any compensation.
This claim is dismissed. Refund of all rent due to the tenant’s driveway being unlawful
The tenant sought refund of all the rent paid during the tenancy due to his driveway being unlawful.
The tenant was relying on a letter from Auckland Transport dated 10 th March 2021 saying that the driveway/vehicle crossing was illegal.
However, on a closer perusal of the second page of that letter, it was evident that Auckland Transport was referring to the landlord’s “newer driveway” and not the tenant’s driveway.
Further to that, the landlord provided evidence of the newer driveway having been approved previously under a different street address.
Therefore, the tenant had no evidence to prove that the tenant’s driveway was unlawful.
This claim is also dismissed.
As all of the tenant’s claims had failed, the tenant’s cross-application is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The tenant’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 th August 2023.
The parties first appeared on 19 th January 2023 before me. On that date, I granted the landlord’s application for termination of tenancy.
The landlord was awarded $8,327.14 for rent arrears to 31 st January 2023.
The bond was refunded to the landlord.
The landlord had anticipated that there would be further claims against the tenant once the landlord took back possession of the premises.
However, at the hearing, the landlord confirmed that he did not wish to pursue any further claims against the tenant.
The tenant had made a cross-application against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages. They were for: a. Compensation for the landlord storing three containers and a campervan on the tenant’s “proper driveway”; 4468921, 44789112 b. Compensation for the loss incurred when the tenant sold a lawnmower that had been purchased specifically in anticipation of a longer-term tenancy at the premises; c. Compensation for having to move out much earlier than anticipated; and d. Refund of all rent due to the tenant’s driveway being unlawful. Background
The tenancy premises is surrounded by farmland on three sides and a road on one side. The landlord owns the surrounding farmland adjacent to two sides of the tenancy premises.
The tenancy premises has an older driveway which was designated as the tenant’s driveway.
There was another “newer” driveway which the landlord used to access his farm as storing his three containers and a campervan.
The tenant contented that the tenant’s driveway was unconsented and unlawful and claimed that the landlord’s newer driveway should have been the tenant’s proper driveway. Compensation for landlord’s goods stored on the tenant’s “proper” driveway
The tenant sought $9,750.00 for storage fees for the landlord’s property being on the newer driveway.
However, the tenant acknowledged that the driveway in question was never part of his original tenancy.
Although the tenant contented that the newer driveway was the tenant’s proper driveway, I find that there was no agreement at any stage for the tenant to use that driveway exclusively.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the newer driveway should have been the tenant’s “proper driveway”.
There is no basis for claiming compensation. This claim is dismissed. Compensation for loss incurred from sale of the tenant’s lawnmower
The tenant sought $4,959.00 for the loss incurred on a specialised lawnmower purchased by the tenant specifically for mowing the lawns at the premises.
The tenant accepted that it was the tenant’s responsibility to do the lawns.
The tenant originally had a contractor who was doing the lawns but that particular contractor was unwilling to do the lawns during winter.
The tenant said that there was an understanding that he would become a longer-term tenant and that he invested in a special lawnmower that was fit for purpose with the premises’ particular steep slope. 4468921, 44789113
However, things did not work out between the parties and the tenancy ended earlier than the tenant had hoped.
However, as there was never any actual agreement for a “longer term tenancy”, the landlord is not responsible for any losses incurred by the tenant from investing in his own lawnmower.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation for the tenancy ending earlier
The tenant sought $1,000.00 as compensation for having to move much earlier than anticipated originally.
As above, there was never any actual agreement for any longer-term tenancy.
The landlord is not liable to pay any compensation.
This claim is dismissed. Refund of all rent due to the tenant’s driveway being unlawful
The tenant sought refund of all the rent paid during the tenancy due to his driveway being unlawful.
The tenant was relying on a letter from Auckland Transport dated 10 th March 2021 saying that the driveway/vehicle crossing was illegal.
However, on a closer perusal of the second page of that letter, it was evident that Auckland Transport was referring to the landlord’s “newer driveway” and not the tenant’s driveway.
Further to that, the landlord provided evidence of the newer driveway having been approved previously under a different street address.
Therefore, the tenant had no evidence to prove that the tenant’s driveway was unlawful.
This claim is also dismissed.
As all of the tenant’s claims had failed, the tenant’s cross-application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468921 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468921 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions