What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550311 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 4550311?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550311?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9288717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550311 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 4550311?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550311?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9288717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550311 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550311 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Chandar Maharaj and Manjula Maharaj must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 August 2023.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond on 26 May 2023.
The tenancy of the property ran from 4 April 2022 to 19 March 2023. Missing chattels
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to leave in or at the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
The landlord claimed $805.00 for two replacement storage cabinets that were missing at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlord has written on the property inspection report: “2 storage cupboards from garage missing”.
The landlord says they had storage cabinets in the garage at the start of the tenancy. At several points during the hearing, they seemed to be saying there were three cupboards. A written statement from a previous tenant, who lived at the property for 8 years, says the landlords made three storage cupboards in the garage available for their use. Another former tenant, who says they moved out of the property in March 2022, says they left behind two cupboards in the garage which were there when they arrived.
The tenant says she brought her own cupboards to the property when she moved in. The tenant provided an invoice for the wardrobe and cupboard she brought to the property, which were purchased on 27 July 2021. She says there was a cupboard belonging to the landlords in the garage which she also used with their permission. The tenant left this behind when she vacated.
The landlord said they performed routine inspections at the property, but they were not checking the garage (no inspection records or reports were provided). A number of chattels were listed in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said the storage cupboards were the only chattel provided that was not listed on the agreement.
The landlord has the burden of proving their claims to the civil standard of proof. The storage cupboards were not listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement and there are no photographs showing them in the garage during the tenancy (or at any other time).
The tenant had her own cupboards and did not need to remove anything belonging to the landlord. The tenant denied having taken anything by mistake, which occasionally happens when tenants move house. The statements from previous tenants indicate there were storage cupboards in the garage during their tenancies, but do not establish what was available during this tenancy. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave behind storage cupboards provided for her use. Internet
The landlord claimed the cost of repairs to the “signet patch panel” in the sum of $161.00.
An e-mail from the technician dated 11 July 2023 said: “...the internet services was [sic] completed at signet 2000 cabinet by [redacted] for the previous tenants. When [the] new tenants arrived the cabinet had been cut off from the data, the modem was supposed to be located at the study room upstairs. I was called by the owner to come and sort out when the tenants had come in. When I came into the building I had saw [sic] that cable had been chopped off in the signet 2000 cabinet. I had then restated [sic] the cables to the same study room.”
A photograph was provided which seems to show a broken or loose blue wire in an electrical cabinet. I understand this is the ethernet cable which the technician replaced.
A written statement was provided by the new tenant, who moved in at the end of March 2023, following the tenancy. The new tenant said that when he moved in, “...the broadband line was not working”. The landlord arranged for an electrician to come and resolve the issue: “After this, wi-fi extenders were not needed”.
The tenant denied damaging any cables. She said the house had internet connectivity issues. They used signal extenders and had no issues with the internet while they were living there. The internet box was in a linen cupboard and that was all she used it for. She denied damaging the cables or knowing anything about the damage.
The internet cable has been damaged, but it is not clear when this happened. The landlord explained that the internet cables had been hardwired prior to the tenancy to ensure an internet signal throughout the property. The email from the technician is ambiguous. It probably means the hardwiring work was done between the previous tenancy and this tenancy, although no invoice was provided to substantiate this.
The new tenant does not say he had no internet access when he moved in. He said the “broadband line” was not working. He also says that wi-fi extenders were not needed after the cable was fixed. This tends to suggest he initially had some access to the internet. The tenant also said they used extenders because the modem was in the garage, limiting the signal. It is possible the cable was damaged prior to the tenant’s occupation of the property. The written statements from previous tenants say nothing about the internet connection. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the ethernet cable. Vacuum cleaner
The property had an inbuilt vacuum cleaner. The landlord said that after the tenancy, when they tried to clean the house for the next tenants, it was not working. They found stones and broken crockery inside the pipes. They employed [redacted] to clear the blockage, at a cost of $210.00. Because the house where they live is right in front of the tenancy address, they could hear the tenant using the built-in vacuum. They had checked everything was working before the tenancy started.
The tenant said she has a number of vacuum cleaners, including a [redacted] which she preferred to use. She vacuums nearly every day. She denied using the inbuilt vacuum cleaner because it was awkward to set up for use.
This issue, like the others, involves conflicting oral evidence. There is limited documentary or photographic evidence to enable the Tribunal to evaluate credibility, or to substantiate one party’s view over that of the other. In common parlance, it is a “he said/she said” situation.
The landlord believes he heard the built-in vacuum cleaner being used, but it is not proven that this would have had a distinctive sound compared to other vacuum cleaners owned by the tenant. The tenant says she did not use the built-in vacuum cleaner and it is possible it was blocked before her tenancy. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the vacuum cleaner through improper use. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant’s application for refund of the bond has succeeded. I must award the filing fee.
The tenant is entitled to suppression, as requested, pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550311 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Chandar Maharaj and Manjula Maharaj must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 August 2023.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond on 26 May 2023.
The tenancy of the property ran from 4 April 2022 to 19 March 2023. Missing chattels
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to leave in or at the premises all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.
The landlord claimed $805.00 for two replacement storage cabinets that were missing at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlord has written on the property inspection report: “2 storage cupboards from garage missing”.
The landlord says they had storage cabinets in the garage at the start of the tenancy. At several points during the hearing, they seemed to be saying there were three cupboards. A written statement from a previous tenant, who lived at the property for 8 years, says the landlords made three storage cupboards in the garage available for their use. Another former tenant, who says they moved out of the property in March 2022, says they left behind two cupboards in the garage which were there when they arrived.
The tenant says she brought her own cupboards to the property when she moved in. The tenant provided an invoice for the wardrobe and cupboard she brought to the property, which were purchased on 27 July 2021. She says there was a cupboard belonging to the landlords in the garage which she also used with their permission. The tenant left this behind when she vacated.
The landlord said they performed routine inspections at the property, but they were not checking the garage (no inspection records or reports were provided). A number of chattels were listed in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said the storage cupboards were the only chattel provided that was not listed on the agreement.
The landlord has the burden of proving their claims to the civil standard of proof. The storage cupboards were not listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement and there are no photographs showing them in the garage during the tenancy (or at any other time).
The tenant had her own cupboards and did not need to remove anything belonging to the landlord. The tenant denied having taken anything by mistake, which occasionally happens when tenants move house. The statements from previous tenants indicate there were storage cupboards in the garage during their tenancies, but do not establish what was available during this tenancy. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave behind storage cupboards provided for her use. Internet
The landlord claimed the cost of repairs to the “signet patch panel” in the sum of $161.00.
An e-mail from the technician dated 11 July 2023 said: “...the internet services was [sic] completed at signet 2000 cabinet by [redacted] for the previous tenants. When [the] new tenants arrived the cabinet had been cut off from the data, the modem was supposed to be located at the study room upstairs. I was called by the owner to come and sort out when the tenants had come in. When I came into the building I had saw [sic] that cable had been chopped off in the signet 2000 cabinet. I had then restated [sic] the cables to the same study room.”
A photograph was provided which seems to show a broken or loose blue wire in an electrical cabinet. I understand this is the ethernet cable which the technician replaced.
A written statement was provided by the new tenant, who moved in at the end of March 2023, following the tenancy. The new tenant said that when he moved in, “...the broadband line was not working”. The landlord arranged for an electrician to come and resolve the issue: “After this, wi-fi extenders were not needed”.
The tenant denied damaging any cables. She said the house had internet connectivity issues. They used signal extenders and had no issues with the internet while they were living there. The internet box was in a linen cupboard and that was all she used it for. She denied damaging the cables or knowing anything about the damage.
The internet cable has been damaged, but it is not clear when this happened. The landlord explained that the internet cables had been hardwired prior to the tenancy to ensure an internet signal throughout the property. The email from the technician is ambiguous. It probably means the hardwiring work was done between the previous tenancy and this tenancy, although no invoice was provided to substantiate this.
The new tenant does not say he had no internet access when he moved in. He said the “broadband line” was not working. He also says that wi-fi extenders were not needed after the cable was fixed. This tends to suggest he initially had some access to the internet. The tenant also said they used extenders because the modem was in the garage, limiting the signal. It is possible the cable was damaged prior to the tenant’s occupation of the property. The written statements from previous tenants say nothing about the internet connection. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the ethernet cable. Vacuum cleaner
The property had an inbuilt vacuum cleaner. The landlord said that after the tenancy, when they tried to clean the house for the next tenants, it was not working. They found stones and broken crockery inside the pipes. They employed [redacted] to clear the blockage, at a cost of $210.00. Because the house where they live is right in front of the tenancy address, they could hear the tenant using the built-in vacuum. They had checked everything was working before the tenancy started.
The tenant said she has a number of vacuum cleaners, including a [redacted] which she preferred to use. She vacuums nearly every day. She denied using the inbuilt vacuum cleaner because it was awkward to set up for use.
This issue, like the others, involves conflicting oral evidence. There is limited documentary or photographic evidence to enable the Tribunal to evaluate credibility, or to substantiate one party’s view over that of the other. In common parlance, it is a “he said/she said” situation.
The landlord believes he heard the built-in vacuum cleaner being used, but it is not proven that this would have had a distinctive sound compared to other vacuum cleaners owned by the tenant. The tenant says she did not use the built-in vacuum cleaner and it is possible it was blocked before her tenancy. I find the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the vacuum cleaner through improper use. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant’s application for refund of the bond has succeeded. I must award the filing fee.
The tenant is entitled to suppression, as requested, pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550311 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550311 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions