What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551449 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4551449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551449 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4551449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9309691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

One Tree Hill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4551449 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The tenant attended in person with her partner who also lived in the premises.

Theunis Judeel of Investment Rentals and the owner, Kevin Williams attended in person also.

The tenant seeks return of her bond.

The owner seeks payment out of the bond for alleged damaged to the premises’ carpets during the tenancy.

The tenancy has ended. Mr Williams intends to sell the premises.

Mr Judeel managed the property. At the end of the tenancy, he told the tenants he was satisfied the premises had been returned in a clean and undamaged condition.

However, a couple of days later, Mr Williams inspected the premises and considered the carpets had been badly stained in multiple places.

The tenant adamantly denies damaging the carpet.

I have decided not to go into the issue because it is moot.

Mr Williams says the carpet was about five years old. Replacing the damaged carpet will cost about $6,600. Mr Williams’ insurance company has paid him or will pay him out $5,500.00 to replace the affected carpet. The depreciate value of the carpet is about $3,300.00. That amount is the maximum amount the Tribunal would award on Mr Williams’ claim.

It follows that Mr Williams has suffered no loss. The new carpet cannot be matched to the existing carpet because it is not manufactured anymore. I do not consider that is something for which the landlord should be compensated.

I am not prepared to spend Tribunal time on a claim that is moot.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim is allowed. The bond is to be returned to her.

The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The tenant attended in person with her partner who also lived in the premises.

Theunis Judeel of Investment Rentals and the owner, Kevin Williams attended in person also.

The tenant seeks return of her bond.

The owner seeks payment out of the bond for alleged damaged to the premises’ carpets during the tenancy.

The tenancy has ended. Mr Williams intends to sell the premises.

Mr Judeel managed the property. At the end of the tenancy, he told the tenants he was satisfied the premises had been returned in a clean and undamaged condition.

However, a couple of days later, Mr Williams inspected the premises and considered the carpets had been badly stained in multiple places.

The tenant adamantly denies damaging the carpet.

I have decided not to go into the issue because it is moot.

I am not prepared to spend Tribunal time on a claim that is moot.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim is allowed. The bond is to be returned to her.

The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551449 — Tenancy dispute in One Tree Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551449 — Tenancy dispute in One Tree Hill, Auckland

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