What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550721 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4550721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550721?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9279945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550721 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4550721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550721?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9279945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 224, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550721 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Woojoon Kim and David Ho attended the hearing for the landlord. There was no attendance by the tenant.
This tenancy commenced on 8 February 2022. The tenancy ended on 31 March 2023.
The landlord seeks compensation for the cost to repair damages to the tenant’s unit.
The damage included broken doors and broken windows, as well as a kitchen drawer and some damage to walls.
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 (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.
In this case, the landlord says that the problem relates to a person described as the “partner” of the tenant. This individual is not a tenant and does not live at the premises.
This person has been violent towards the tenant who is therefore a victim of family violence. I was advised that police have been called and this person was arrested.
The landlord said that they have received multiple complaints from other occupants and owners of apartments at the premises.
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for damage, they must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See section 40(2)(a) and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission (see ss 40(2)(a), 40(4) and 41 of the Act).
The landlord faces two problems with this claim.
First, there were no ingoing inspection reports or photographs that establish the condition of the premises prior to the tenancy. This means that the landlord cannot establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
This is an important part of discharging the burden and the lack of evidence on this point alone is likely sufficient to dismiss the claim.
Secondly, even if I am wrong about the first point, I am not satisfied that the person who has caused the damage was at the premises with the tenant’s permission. Although the landlord characterised the tenant as allowing this person to be at the premises, this suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics involved in family violence.
For these reasons, I find that the landlord has not established their claim to the requisite standard, and it must therefore be dismissed.
I observe that in any event, the landlord has already succeeded in obtaining a refund of the tenant’s bond, presumably via a one-party procedure at the Bond Centre.
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name of any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I consider that in this case, given what has been discussed there is a legitimate privacy interest for the tenant, and there is no legitimate public interest that would require publication of her name. I therefore order suppression of her name and identifying details. J R Smith 10 August 2023

Reasons

Woojoon Kim and David Ho attended the hearing for the landlord. There was no attendance by the tenant.

This tenancy commenced on 8 February 2022. The tenancy ended on 31 March 2023.

The landlord seeks compensation for the cost to repair damages to the tenant’s unit.

The damage included broken doors and broken windows, as well as a kitchen drawer and some damage to walls.

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 (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

In this case, the landlord says that the problem relates to a person described as the “partner” of the tenant. This individual is not a tenant and does not live at the premises.

This person has been violent towards the tenant who is therefore a victim of family violence. I was advised that police have been called and this person was arrested.

The landlord said that they have received multiple complaints from other occupants and owners of apartments at the premises.

For a landlord to succeed in a claim for damage, they must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See section 40(2)(a) and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission (see ss 40(2)(a), 40(4) and 41 of the Act).

The landlord faces two problems with this claim.

First, there were no ingoing inspection reports or photographs that establish the condition of the premises prior to the tenancy. This means that the landlord cannot establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

This is an important part of discharging the burden and the lack of evidence on this point alone is likely sufficient to dismiss the claim.

Secondly, even if I am wrong about the first point, I am not satisfied that the person who has caused the damage was at the premises with the tenant’s permission. Although the landlord characterised the tenant as allowing this person to be at the premises, this suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics involved in family violence.

For these reasons, I find that the landlord has not established their claim to the requisite standard, and it must therefore be dismissed.

I observe that in any event, the landlord has already succeeded in obtaining a refund of the tenant’s bond, presumably via a one-party procedure at the Bond Centre.

Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name of any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

I consider that in this case, given what has been discussed there is a legitimate privacy interest for the tenant, and there is no legitimate public interest that would require publication of her name. I therefore order suppression of her name and identifying details. J R Smith 10 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550721 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 224, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550721 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 224, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions