What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642071 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9541824-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642071 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9541824-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

60 Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642071 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s written application was unclear. At the hearing she agreed that her claims against the landlord were: a. She was confused by the landlord’s employees who interviewed her and arranged for her to change her tenancy to another property. She believed that she did not consent to the move to another property. b. The property was unsafe because it was on a lean and she decided to leave. She claimed compensation for the rent during the time she was not living in the property and for the loss of two televisions which she claimed were caused by the lean. c. For compensation for items stolen from the property during the period she was not living there. d. For compensation for the pain and suffering she has suffered because of mites or scabies which she and her family contracted during the tenancy. Proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Background
The tenant was the victim of an incident near to her property. The landlord was concerned at its impact on her and her family and made contact to see if she wanted to move from the property.
The tenant completed a transfer request which was approved by the landlord and she moved into the property on 1 June 2022.
The tenant complained to the landlord early in the tenancy that the property was on a lean and that she had difficulties with windows shutting and doors unexpectedly closing on their own. She also complained that due to the lean of the house, two of her television sets had fallen off furniture and broken.
The landlord agreed to have the piles inspected by a professional. There was some difficulty in obtaining access for the necessary inspection which was completed on 29 September 2022.
The landlord attended to the fixing of windows and doors that were not functioning properly due to the pile issue at the property.
The landlord advised that its contractor had confirmed that the property was on a small lean and that the worst angle of lean was one degree. It was satisfied with its contractor’s advice that any work required for repiling was not urgent and that it was safe for the property to be inhabited.
The tenant and her family became increasingly concerned by issues with the property and moved out into another property. An approach was made to the landlord for rent relief because the tenant was not living in the property as she believed it was unsafe. The landlord advised that it was explained to the tenant that this was not possible as the tenant had chosen not to live in the property, had not given notice and the landlord had obtained advice that the property was safe to live in.
On 31 May 2023 the tenant’s doctor wrote to the landlord advising that the tenant was suffering from mites which the doctor advised came from “a house infested with mites”. At this time the tenant was not living in the property. The doctor did not provide any proof other than the tenant’s symptoms.
The landlord had its contractor inspect the property but no evidence of infestation could be found.
The landlord arranged for the tenant and her family to move into another property from 3 August 2023 when this tenancy ended.
The tenant returned to the property some time after the end of the tenancy and found that many of her possessions had been stolen and a wall in the property had been graffitied. Decision
The tenant did not submit any evidence to the Tribunal in support of her claims. She did not have a report from a qualified person confirming that the property was unsafe or that the property was infested with mites. The landlord provided evidence that the property was safe and that it could not find evidence of any infestation.
The burden of proof is on the tenant and I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property was either unsafe or infested with mites which caused the tenant’s health problems.
The tenant’s claims for compensation for these matters is dismissed.
The tenant provided no proof of how the television sets were damaged, their value or her loss. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord is under no legal obligation to compensate the tenant for items stolen from the tenant during the tenancy. This claim is also dismissed.
At the hearing, the landlord explained to the tenant how she came to moved to this property and has submitted in evidence the transfer request form signed by the tenant. While the tenant claims that she was confused by the process, the Tribunal cannot accept her claim for compensation when the written evidence is that she requested such a transfer which was done for the tenant’s benefit and wellbeing.
While the outcome of that transfer was to cause the tenant ill health and distress, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that the landlord is liable for those consequences. Suppression
Having considered the personal issues facing the tenant and which have contributed to her present predicament, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of her name and identifying details.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s written application was unclear. At the hearing she agreed that her claims against the landlord were: a. She was confused by the landlord’s employees who interviewed her and arranged for her to change her tenancy to another property. She believed that she did not consent to the move to another property. b. The property was unsafe because it was on a lean and she decided to leave. She claimed compensation for the rent during the time she was not living in the property and for the loss of two televisions which she claimed were caused by the lean. c. For compensation for items stolen from the property during the period she was not living there. d. For compensation for the pain and suffering she has suffered because of mites or scabies which she and her family contracted during the tenancy. Proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Background
The tenant was the victim of an incident near to her property. The landlord was concerned at its impact on her and her family and made contact to see if she wanted to move from the property.
The tenant completed a transfer request which was approved by the landlord and she moved into the property on 1 June 2022.
The tenant complained to the landlord early in the tenancy that the property was on a lean and that she had difficulties with windows shutting and doors unexpectedly closing on their own. She also complained that due to the lean of the house, two of her television sets had fallen off furniture and broken.
The landlord agreed to have the piles inspected by a professional. There was some difficulty in obtaining access for the necessary inspection which was completed on 29 September 2022.
The landlord attended to the fixing of windows and doors that were not functioning properly due to the pile issue at the property.
The landlord advised that its contractor had confirmed that the property was on a small lean and that the worst angle of lean was one degree. It was satisfied with its contractor’s advice that any work required for repiling was not urgent and that it was safe for the property to be inhabited.
The tenant and her family became increasingly concerned by issues with the property and moved out into another property. An approach was made to the landlord for rent relief because the tenant was not living in the property as she believed it was unsafe. The landlord advised that it was explained to the tenant that this was not possible as the tenant had chosen not to live in the property, had not given notice and the landlord had obtained advice that the property was safe to live in.
On 31 May 2023 the tenant’s doctor wrote to the landlord advising that the tenant was suffering from mites which the doctor advised came from “a house infested with mites”. At this time the tenant was not living in the property. The doctor did not provide any proof other than the tenant’s symptoms.
The landlord had its contractor inspect the property but no evidence of infestation could be found.
The landlord arranged for the tenant and her family to move into another property from 3 August 2023 when this tenancy ended.
The tenant returned to the property some time after the end of the tenancy and found that many of her possessions had been stolen and a wall in the property had been graffitied. Decision
The tenant did not submit any evidence to the Tribunal in support of her claims. She did not have a report from a qualified person confirming that the property was unsafe or that the property was infested with mites. The landlord provided evidence that the property was safe and that it could not find evidence of any infestation.
The burden of proof is on the tenant and I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property was either unsafe or infested with mites which caused the tenant’s health problems.
The tenant’s claims for compensation for these matters is dismissed.
The tenant provided no proof of how the television sets were damaged, their value or her loss. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord is under no legal obligation to compensate the tenant for items stolen from the tenant during the tenancy. This claim is also dismissed.
At the hearing, the landlord explained to the tenant how she came to moved to this property and has submitted in evidence the transfer request form signed by the tenant. While the tenant claims that she was confused by the process, the Tribunal cannot accept her claim for compensation when the written evidence is that she requested such a transfer which was done for the tenant’s benefit and wellbeing.
While the outcome of that transfer was to cause the tenant ill health and distress, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that the landlord is liable for those consequences. Suppression
Having considered the personal issues facing the tenant and which have contributed to her present predicament, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642071 — Tenancy dispute at 60 Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642071 — Tenancy dispute at 60 Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions