What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775417 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4775417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775417?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9904338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775417 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4775417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775417?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9904338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4775417 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing, conducted via video. The landlord did not join and a call out was made for her to participate in the proceedings.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 applicant claimed the landlord improperly terminated by notice the tenancy, citing the reason being a family member was to move in when that was not intended.
In support of that claim, the tenants recounted an unsolicited visit to their premises during the termination notice period from prospective tenants, responding to an on-line advertisement they had seen. The tenants provided a copy of the advertisement in their application. It was worded in such a way that one could possibly reach a conclusion that the intention evidenced did not support a family member moving in at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants lodged their application shortly afterwards. The tenancy has now ended.
The landlord explained the reason for the initial instruction to the property manager to draft and serve the notice to terminate. She explained the reason for the on-line advertisement and accepted the drafting and placement could create an impression that the premises were being offered for rent but she explained the reason for the advertisement and wording. Her contention was that she was looking for flatmates to join her son but the wording did not accurately reflect that.
The landlord withdrew the advertisement. She explained that was because her son found flatmates himself. The tenants’ view was that it was removed once they raised this application.
Prior to the hearing the landlord provided documents as evidence. These include a tenancy agreement, proof of rent paid, and utilities established under the new tenancy. These support the conclusion her son has physically moved in.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the notice to terminate, citing s 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the reason , was motivated by other intentions. Her son has moved in. I do accept the advertisement confused the situation and while I have considered the tenants view of events and landlord motivation, there is insufficient evidence to support their claims. I must therefore dismiss their application. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. They have been unsuccessful so suppression as of right is not available to them. Given the confused situation and events leading to their application in early January 2024 I consider their application had potential merit at the time of lodgement. The landlord has since been able to provide compelling counter-evidence, even more so given by the date of the hearing the new tenancy had formed, moving some conjecture to reality.
The landlord requested suppression at the hearing.
I have decided to exercise the Tribunal’s initiative and order suppression of both parties’ details. I see little public interest in this matter, such that it might outweigh the interest of the parties in having a suppression order made.
Name suppression is ordered.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing, conducted via video. The landlord did not join and a call out was made for her to participate in the proceedings.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 applicant claimed the landlord improperly terminated by notice the tenancy, citing the reason being a family member was to move in when that was not intended.

In support of that claim, the tenants recounted an unsolicited visit to their premises during the termination notice period from prospective tenants, responding to an on-line advertisement they had seen. The tenants provided a copy of the advertisement in their application. It was worded in such a way that one could possibly reach a conclusion that the intention evidenced did not support a family member moving in at the end of the tenancy.

The tenants lodged their application shortly afterwards. The tenancy has now ended.

The landlord explained the reason for the initial instruction to the property manager to draft and serve the notice to terminate. She explained the reason for the on-line advertisement and accepted the drafting and placement could create an impression that the premises were being offered for rent but she explained the reason for the advertisement and wording. Her contention was that she was looking for flatmates to join her son but the wording did not accurately reflect that.

The landlord withdrew the advertisement. She explained that was because her son found flatmates himself. The tenants’ view was that it was removed once they raised this application.

Prior to the hearing the landlord provided documents as evidence. These include a tenancy agreement, proof of rent paid, and utilities established under the new tenancy. These support the conclusion her son has physically moved in.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the notice to terminate, citing s 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the reason , was motivated by other intentions. Her son has moved in. I do accept the advertisement confused the situation and while I have considered the tenants view of events and landlord motivation, there is insufficient evidence to support their claims. I must therefore dismiss their application. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. They have been unsuccessful so suppression as of right is not available to them. Given the confused situation and events leading to their application in early January 2024 I consider their application had potential merit at the time of lodgement. The landlord has since been able to provide compelling counter-evidence, even more so given by the date of the hearing the new tenancy had formed, moving some conjecture to reality.

The landlord requested suppression at the hearing.

I have decided to exercise the Tribunal’s initiative and order suppression of both parties’ details. I see little public interest in this matter, such that it might outweigh the interest of the parties in having a suppression order made.

Name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775417 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775417 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions