What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4743989 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4743989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743989?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9798687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4743989 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4743989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743989?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9798687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743989 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal makes numerous claims against the landlord in relation to the landlord’s disposal of her goods after the end of the tenancy.
In considering the tenant’s 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 her claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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.
The Tribunal made an Order 4637054 by consent on 19 October 2023 (“the Order”). The Order recorded that: a. The parties withdrew their applications. b. The tenant had until 5:00 pm on 8 November 2023 to remove all goods from the premises. c. The landlord would allow “reasonable access for the tenant or her support people to remove the tenant’s goods. d. If the tenant’s goods were not removed by the stipulated date and time, the landlord “can dispose of all tenant goods remaining as the landlord sees fit.” e. The Order was “full and final settlement of the matters currently before the Tribunal / District Court”. f. The parties acknowledged “that they will not be able to pursue any further grievance in relation to the tenancy.”
No application has been made by either party for a rehearing or appeal of the Order. The times for applying for a rehearing or appeal have passed. The Tribunal and the parties are therefore bound by the terms of the Order.
Given the binding terms of the Order, the Tribunal can only consider the tenant’s application if the tenant proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not allow her reasonable access to remove her goods.
The tenant gave verbal evidence at the hearing of her and her assistants’ repeated requests for access to the property to remove her goods.
The landlord provided a timeline with copies of text communications confirming the details of the tenant’s requests. It is not necessary to list them in detail.
Both the landlord and the tenant gave evidence that access was granted on 21 October 2023, 28 October 2023, 1 November 2023 and 8 November 2023.
The tenant’s claim is that allowing access on these four days was insufficient for her, her assistants and contractors to remove all of her goods and that the landlord denied access to them at times that suited her, her assistants and contractors.
The tenant did not file any supporting evidence with her application, however the landlord’s timeline and copies of text messages corroborated the evidence the tenant gave verbally at the hearing. I note that the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The landlord was not required to provide any access which the tenant required. The landlord was required under the terms of the Order to provide “reasonable access”.
The evidence from the text messages is that the landlord provided dates on which the tenant could access the property and that the tenant did so on four occasions. The landlord’s text evidence is that she tried to be accommodating to the tenant’s requests within her work and family commitments.
The landlord’s evidence included that: a. Having allowed the tenant access on 21 October 2023 from 1 pm until 5 pm, the tenant’s friend acknowledged by text that they had finished for the day at 3.31 pm. b. The landlord agreed to extend the tenant’s access on 28 October 2023 from 4 pm to 6 pm but at 3.30 pm the tenant’s friend confirmed that everything except for one more carload had been removed from the property. c. The landlord agreed on short notice to meeting with the tenant on 1 November 2023 to allow access for the [organisation] to collect remaining items.
This evidence indicates that the landlord was prepared to be flexible and had tried to allow the tenant longer times than had been agreed, but that the tenant did not use these extended opportunities.
I am unable to conclude that the landlord did not allow reasonable access to the property. She provided access at times requested by the tenant on four separate occasions. The total amount of time allowed for 21 October 2023 was four hours and on 28 October 2023 a further five hours. This amount of time on its own is not an unreasonable amount of time for the tenant to remove her goods.
The landlord has complied with the terms of the Order and the tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal makes numerous claims against the landlord in relation to the landlord’s disposal of her goods after the end of the tenancy.
In considering the tenant’s 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 her claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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.
The Tribunal made an Order 4637054 by consent on 19 October 2023 (“the Order”). The Order recorded that: a. The parties withdrew their applications. b. The tenant had until 5:00 pm on 8 November 2023 to remove all goods from the premises. c. The landlord would allow “reasonable access for the tenant or her support people to remove the tenant’s goods. d. If the tenant’s goods were not removed by the stipulated date and time, the landlord “can dispose of all tenant goods remaining as the landlord sees fit.” e. The Order was “full and final settlement of the matters currently before the Tribunal / District Court”. f. The parties acknowledged “that they will not be able to pursue any further grievance in relation to the tenancy.”
No application has been made by either party for a rehearing or appeal of the Order. The times for applying for a rehearing or appeal have passed. The Tribunal and the parties are therefore bound by the terms of the Order.
Given the binding terms of the Order, the Tribunal can only consider the tenant’s application if the tenant proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not allow her reasonable access to remove her goods.
The tenant gave verbal evidence at the hearing of her and her assistants’ repeated requests for access to the property to remove her goods.
The landlord provided a timeline with copies of text communications confirming the details of the tenant’s requests. It is not necessary to list them in detail.
Both the landlord and the tenant gave evidence that access was granted on 21 October 2023, 28 October 2023, 1 November 2023 and 8 November 2023.
The tenant’s claim is that allowing access on these four days was insufficient for her, her assistants and contractors to remove all of her goods and that the landlord denied access to them at times that suited her, her assistants and contractors.
The tenant did not file any supporting evidence with her application, however the landlord’s timeline and copies of text messages corroborated the evidence the tenant gave verbally at the hearing. I note that the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The landlord was not required to provide any access which the tenant required. The landlord was required under the terms of the Order to provide “reasonable access”.
The evidence from the text messages is that the landlord provided dates on which the tenant could access the property and that the tenant did so on four occasions. The landlord’s text evidence is that she tried to be accommodating to the tenant’s requests within her work and family commitments.
The landlord’s evidence included that: a. Having allowed the tenant access on 21 October 2023 from 1 pm until 5 pm, the tenant’s friend acknowledged by text that they had finished for the day at 3.31 pm. b. The landlord agreed to extend the tenant’s access on 28 October 2023 from 4 pm to 6 pm but at 3.30 pm the tenant’s friend confirmed that everything except for one more carload had been removed from the property. c. The landlord agreed on short notice to meeting with the tenant on 1 November 2023 to allow access for the [organisation] to collect remaining items.
This evidence indicates that the landlord was prepared to be flexible and had tried to allow the tenant longer times than had been agreed, but that the tenant did not use these extended opportunities.
I am unable to conclude that the landlord did not allow reasonable access to the property. She provided access at times requested by the tenant on four separate occasions. The total amount of time allowed for 21 October 2023 was four hours and on 28 October 2023 a further five hours. This amount of time on its own is not an unreasonable amount of time for the tenant to remove her goods.
The landlord has complied with the terms of the Order and the tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743989 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743989 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions