What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637092 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4637092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637092?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708722-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637092 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4637092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637092?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708722-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Marlin Street, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637092 — Mould & damp

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.

The tenant claims the landlord did not provide her with a particular key for the tenancy, failed to transfer the bond to her name, did not add her name to the Tenancy Agreement, did not maintain the premises when requested and did not end the tenancy when requested.

The tenant entered an existing tenancy by replacing one of the tenants who was leaving. She paid her bond to that leaving tenant.

At some stage a document was drafted and signed by the tenant which recorded her as one of the tenants. That document was an agreement to vary the terms and conditions of the original tenancy agreement.

While the tenant has brought a claim against the landlord it seems that most of her issues were really with the other tenants, and this is not the appropriate forum for that. On 1 July 2023 the tenant was involved in a confrontation with one of the other tenants which resulted in Police involvement. The tenant was issued with a two-day Police Safety Order requiring her to vacate the premises for two days.

When the tenant returned to the premises the other tenants locked the premises by using a deadbolt which the tenant had not been provided a key for. Two days later the tenant managed to get her belongings out of the tenancy and moved out.

Later she was refunded her bond payment from the other tenants.

The tenant considers that she is entitled to compensation because the Property Manager “put her through so much”. She was confused as to whether she was a tenant and was concerned about whether she would get her bond back. Interestingly the tenant was also upset that the landlord would not end the tenancy (which would affect all tenants) even though she had agreed to move out. There is no suggestion that the other tenants wanted the tenancy to end.

One maintenance issue mentioned was the mouldy silicone in the shower. The tenant asked for a contractor to remedy this. She said that she spoke to someone who authorised her to employ a contractor for this purpose. The tenant got her partner to remove and replace the silicone and thought that he should be reimbursed.

The tenant has no evidence that the landlord authorised the repair and the tenant did not pay for the repair. This claim is not accepted and is therefore dismissed.

On the evidence I do not consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation. The tenancy ended and the tenant received her bond back. The landlord was not responsible for the other tenants locking the deadbolt. While the landlord may be at fault for some failings in relation to record keeping I don’t consider in the circumstances that compensation is warranted.

It seems that the tenant’s wish to terminate the tenancy when she moved out was intended as payback to the other tenants who she had fallen out with.

The onus is on the applicant to establish her claim on the balance of probabilities. She has failed to do so, and her claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide her with a particular key for the tenancy, failed to transfer the bond to her name, did not add her name to the Tenancy Agreement, did not maintain the premises when requested and did not end the tenancy when requested.
The tenant entered an existing tenancy by replacing one of the tenants who was leaving. She paid her bond to that leaving tenant.
At some stage a document was drafted and signed by the tenant which recorded her as one of the tenants. That document was an agreement to vary the terms and conditions of the original tenancy agreement.
While the tenant has brought a claim against the landlord it seems that most of her issues were really with the other tenants, and this is not the appropriate forum for that. On 1 July 2023 the tenant was involved in a confrontation with one of the other tenants which resulted in Police involvement. The tenant was issued with a two-day Police Safety Order requiring her to vacate the premises for two days.
When the tenant returned to the premises the other tenants locked the premises by using a deadbolt which the tenant had not been provided a key for. Two days later the tenant managed to get her belongings out of the tenancy and moved out.
Later she was refunded her bond payment from the other tenants.
The tenant considers that she is entitled to compensation because the Property Manager “put her through so much”. She was confused as to whether she was a tenant and was concerned about whether she would get her bond back. Interestingly the tenant was also upset that the landlord would not end the tenancy (which would affect all tenants) even though she had agreed to move out. There is no suggestion that the other tenants wanted the tenancy to end.
One maintenance issue mentioned was the mouldy silicone in the shower. The tenant asked for a contractor to remedy this. She said that she spoke to someone who authorised her to employ a contractor for this purpose. The tenant got her partner to remove and replace the silicone and thought that he should be reimbursed.
The tenant has no evidence that the landlord authorised the repair and the tenant did not pay for the repair. This claim is not accepted and is therefore dismissed.
On the evidence I do not consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation. The tenancy ended and the tenant received her bond back. The landlord was not responsible for the other tenants locking the deadbolt. While the landlord may be at fault for some failings in relation to record keeping I don’t consider in the circumstances that compensation is warranted.
It seems that the tenant’s wish to terminate the tenancy when she moved out was intended as payback to the other tenants who she had fallen out with.
The onus is on the applicant to establish her claim on the balance of probabilities. She has failed to do so, and her claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637092 — Mould & damp at 8 Marlin Street, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637092 — Mould & damp at 8 Marlin Street, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions