What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4678809 about?

The tribunal order states: A suppression order has been made on the Tribunal’s own initiative in this case,

How much money was awarded in case 4678809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9544160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4678809 about?

The tribunal order states: A suppression order has been made on the Tribunal’s own initiative in this case,

How much money was awarded in case 4678809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9544160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4678809 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The landlord’s representative] appeared as the agent for the landlord. [The support person] was the support person.

[The tenant/s] appeared with [The tenant/s supported persons] as the support persons.

On 7th September 2023, the landlord filed a compensation application for damage caused to the walls. The compensation amount sought was $5,500 and included the cost of repairing and repainting the walls.

During the hearing, several issues were in dispute. One of the main issues was whether the damage to the wall was due to a water leak or not. [The landlord’s representative] also alleged that [The tenant/s] had undertaken renovation work in the house without the landlord's consent.

[The tenant/s] claimed that she had agreed to release the bond in full to pay for the invoice, but now the landlord was seeking $5,500 without taking into account the bond received in April 2023.

[The tenant/s] also stated that she signed the invoice for $5,500 because the landlord threatened her with termination of the tenancy.

The only issue that was not in dispute was that [The tenant/s]'s children, aged 3, 4, and 5 years old, had drawn on the walls.

From my perspective, the application was not properly prepared. More photos were sent to the Registry on the morning of the hearing, which neither [The tenant/s] nor I had seen before the hearing.

[The landlord’s representative] did not file a pre-tenancy inspection report, and the photos before me were selective. Therefore, I did not have a clear picture of what the property looked like at the start of the tenancy.

I made it clear to [The landlord’s representative] that she had the burden to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. Given the evidence presented and the several issues in dispute, [The landlord’s representative] would have difficulty proving that [The tenant/s] was liable for the compensation sought.

[The landlord’s representative] was given the option to withdraw her application, or have it dismissed as she had not discharged the burden of proof. She decided to withdraw her application.

I encouraged [The tenant/s] to contact Tenancy Services if she had any complaints about her landlord. She could file an application with the Tribunal and seek guidance from Tenancy Services or approach the Community Law Centre for advice.

I granted [The landlord’s representative]'s application to withdraw her complaint and granted suppression on my own initiative under section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act for both parties for the reasons below: a. [The landlord’s representative] withdrew her application; b. [The tenant/s] had complaints to file with the Tribunal yet to be determined; and c. There was no public interest in publishing either party's identification particulars at this stage. Filing Fee

Cost lies where it falls.

Order

A suppression order has been made on the Tribunal’s own initiative in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] names and identifying details.
By consent, the application is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The landlord’s representative] appeared as the agent for the landlord. [The support person] was the support person.
[The tenant/s] appeared with [The tenant/s supported persons] as the support persons.
On 7th September 2023, the landlord filed a compensation application for damage caused to the walls. The compensation amount sought was $5,500 and included the cost of repairing and repainting the walls.
During the hearing, several issues were in dispute. One of the main issues was whether the damage to the wall was due to a water leak or not. [The landlord’s representative] also alleged that [The tenant/s] had undertaken renovation work in the house without the landlord's consent.
[The tenant/s] claimed that she had agreed to release the bond in full to pay for the invoice, but now the landlord was seeking $5,500 without taking into account the bond received in April 2023.
[The tenant/s] also stated that she signed the invoice for $5,500 because the landlord threatened her with termination of the tenancy.
The only issue that was not in dispute was that [The tenant/s]'s children, aged 3, 4, and 5 years old, had drawn on the walls.
From my perspective, the application was not properly prepared. More photos were sent to the Registry on the morning of the hearing, which neither [The tenant/s] nor I had seen before the hearing.
[The landlord’s representative] did not file a pre-tenancy inspection report, and the photos before me were selective. Therefore, I did not have a clear picture of what the property looked like at the start of the tenancy.
I made it clear to [The landlord’s representative] that she had the burden to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. Given the evidence presented and the several issues in dispute, [The landlord’s representative] would have difficulty proving that [The tenant/s] was liable for the compensation sought.
[The landlord’s representative] was given the option to withdraw her application, or have it dismissed as she had not discharged the burden of proof. She decided to withdraw her application.
I encouraged [The tenant/s] to contact Tenancy Services if she had any complaints about her landlord. She could file an application with the Tribunal and seek guidance from Tenancy Services or approach the Community Law Centre for advice.
I granted [The landlord’s representative]'s application to withdraw her complaint and granted suppression on my own initiative under section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act for both parties for the reasons below: a. [The landlord’s representative] withdrew her application; b. [The tenant/s] had complaints to file with the Tribunal yet to be determined; and c. There was no public interest in publishing either party's identification particulars at this stage. Filing Fee
Cost lies where it falls.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678809 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678809 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions