What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594809 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4594809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594809?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9649826-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594809 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4594809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594809?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9649826-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Fernaig Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594809 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down for a half day in person hearing today in the Papakura Court.
The tenancy ended in April this year and the landlord applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, water and damages of $23,449.25 in June.
The Notice of Hearing for today’s hearing was sent out to the parties in August.
Despite the considerable claim and the length of time from the end of the tenancy to hearing, no inspection photographs or inspection reports that showed the condition of the property at the vacate date were filed by the landlord.
The landlord sought an adjournment of the hearing this morning, their email said: I would need to place an urgent request for adjournment to this matter since the property manager who was looking into this is called for an emergency due to some personal reasons and is not available. I have just received confirmation that they will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled and that he is on emergency leave today. Can we please request for adjournment and get a new date for hearing.
I declined the adjournment, and the Registry sent the following email to the landlord at 9.17am with high importance at my request: “ The adjournment is declined. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. The landlord and or another representative can attend. This tenancy ended in April. The landlord should have all their evidence and be in a position to advance their claim. I expect the landlord to attend in person and bring the evidence that they rely on. In that regard I note that there is no photographs or inspection reports on file. The matter will proceed at the allocated time of 9.30 am. If the landlord does not attend then the application is likely to be struck out.”
The landlord did not attend the hearing. I have waited until 10am for the landlord to turn up but there has been no further communication from the landlord.
When considering an adjournment, the Tribunal balances fairness to the party with the other parties right to an expeditious hearing and outcome (see s85 RTA) and Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033. The landlord’s claim is five months old it is for a considerable amount of money. However, the landlord has filed little evidence which supports its claims that the tenants left the property in an unsatisfactory condition and caused damage to the property.
TBT Property Management is an established property management company who regularly appear in the Tribunal. They should be prepared to attend Tribunal hearings and should ensure that they have sufficient staff to do so. They should also ensure that all the evidence is on file, so that if an unexpected event occurs, such as a property manager becoming sick, then another property manager can attend the hearing and speak to that evidence and the claims. The property owner should be kept abreast of the situation, and as the landlord the owner should attend the hearing to speak to the claims if the property manager cannot or as well as the property manager.
I note that the request for an adjournment was sent at 12.03 am. I consider that if it was known that the property manger could not attend at that hour then TBT had an obligation to inform the owner to attend, and there was sufficient time for another property manager to be briefed and attend the hearing.
Hearing time in the Tribunal is a scarce resource and a new hearing may be some months away. The tenant is entitled to have this matter dealt with in a reasonable period of time and without further delay.
As the Applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time then the application is struck out. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down for a half day in person hearing today in the Papakura Court.
The tenancy ended in April this year and the landlord applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, water and damages of $23,449.25 in June.
The Notice of Hearing for today’s hearing was sent out to the parties in August.
Despite the considerable claim and the length of time from the end of the tenancy to hearing, no inspection photographs or inspection reports that showed the condition of the property at the vacate date were filed by the landlord.
The landlord sought an adjournment of the hearing this morning, their email said: I would need to place an urgent request for adjournment to this matter since the property manager who was looking into this is called for an emergency due to some personal reasons and is not available. I have just received confirmation that they will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled and that he is on emergency leave today. Can we please request for adjournment and get a new date for hearing.
I declined the adjournment, and the Registry sent the following email to the landlord at 9.17am with high importance at my request: “ The adjournment is declined. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. The landlord and or another representative can attend. This tenancy ended in April. The landlord should have all their evidence and be in a position to advance their claim. I expect the landlord to attend in person and bring the evidence that they rely on. In that regard I note that there is no photographs or inspection reports on file. The matter will proceed at the allocated time of 9.30 am. If the landlord does not attend then the application is likely to be struck out.”
The landlord did not attend the hearing. I have waited until 10am for the landlord to turn up but there has been no further communication from the landlord.
When considering an adjournment, the Tribunal balances fairness to the party with the other parties right to an expeditious hearing and outcome (see s85 RTA) and Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033. The landlord’s claim is five months old it is for a considerable amount of money. However, the landlord has filed little evidence which supports its claims that the tenants left the property in an unsatisfactory condition and caused damage to the property.
TBT Property Management is an established property management company who regularly appear in the Tribunal. They should be prepared to attend Tribunal hearings and should ensure that they have sufficient staff to do so. They should also ensure that all the evidence is on file, so that if an unexpected event occurs, such as a property manager becoming sick, then another property manager can attend the hearing and speak to that evidence and the claims. The property owner should be kept abreast of the situation, and as the landlord the owner should attend the hearing to speak to the claims if the property manager cannot or as well as the property manager.
I note that the request for an adjournment was sent at 12.03 am. I consider that if it was known that the property manger could not attend at that hour then TBT had an obligation to inform the owner to attend, and there was sufficient time for another property manager to be briefed and attend the hearing.
Hearing time in the Tribunal is a scarce resource and a new hearing may be some months away. The tenant is entitled to have this matter dealt with in a reasonable period of time and without further delay.
As the Applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time then the application is struck out. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594809 — Cleanliness at 25 Fernaig Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594809 — Cleanliness at 25 Fernaig Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions