What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675232 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4675232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675232?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9970323-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675232 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4675232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675232?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9970323-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

689 Pioneer Highway, Brydone, RD 4, Mataura 9774 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675232 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was connected by telephone due to her residing in Australia.

This tenancy commenced at the start of the Covid lockdown in 2020 and concluded in September 2022 when the tenant was given notice as the property was being sold.

The tenant was re housed by the same property management company. After approximately four months the tenant moved to Australia. She filed this application with tenancy services a year after moving out of this property, in September 2023.

The applicant has a number of claims, largely in relation to the condition of property at the commencement of the tenancy and the fact that there is no record of written correspondence of complaints the tenant made to the property manager and promises made for reimbursement of funds the tenant spent on smoke alarms.

The tenant signed the bond release form. She seeks the refund of the bond.

She disputes the claim the landlord made that the carpets needed to be cleaned due to animal smells and this was over and above the amount of the bond. In fact, the tenant owed $21.86.

The tenant claims that she had the carpets cleaned through a contact on social media and they would not give her a receipt.

The applicant claimed that she made a complaint when she moved in and provided a list of issues, that included the need to buy smoke alarms and clean the property. She claims that she was told she would be reimbursed.

The tenancy lasted for two and half years. There were property inspections. It is difficult to see why if there was such a concern that this was not remedied during the tenancy. There is no written evidence of these promises that the tenant states were given verbally. She states that the reason she believes she wasn’t reimbursed was because there were changes in property managers. However, there is no evidence of any follow up with any of the property managers.

The tenant also claims a reimbursement for a water filter she needed to buy given that she believed the water tanks needed to be cleaned. To note, the tenant took the water filter with her when she left the property.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant has not satisfied me that the claim is proven. In fact, the tenant would owe the landlord $21.96 but the landlord is not seeking that to be reimbursed.

The claim therefore is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was connected by telephone due to her residing in Australia.

This tenancy commenced at the start of the Covid lockdown in 2020 and concluded in September 2022 when the tenant was given notice as the property was being sold.

The tenant signed the bond release form. She seeks the refund of the bond.

She disputes the claim the landlord made that the carpets needed to be cleaned due to animal smells and this was over and above the amount of the bond. In fact, the tenant owed $21.86.

The tenant claims that she had the carpets cleaned through a contact on social media and they would not give her a receipt.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant has not satisfied me that the claim is proven. In fact, the tenant would owe the landlord $21.96 but the landlord is not seeking that to be reimbursed.

The claim therefore is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675232 — Smoke alarms at 689 Pioneer Highway, Brydone, RD 4, Mataura 9774

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675232 — Smoke alarms at 689 Pioneer Highway, Brydone, RD 4, Mataura 9774

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