What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775937 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,132.62 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4775937?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775937?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9890778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775937 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,132.62 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4775937?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775937?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9890778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4775937 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 January 2024. General law

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “... [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 emphasis is mine).

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 evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

The landlord applied for compensation for odour cleaning and carpet cleaning. The application for odour cleaning was withdrawn at the hearing, which left the claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice from [Carpet cleaning company] for $776.66 and a series of photos in support if their application.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant had left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy to the point where commercial carpet cleaners were required. The photos failed to show any evidence of significant carpet staining. The application is dismissed.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant name is ordered.

I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.

I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord name and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,132.62 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 January 2024. General law
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “... [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 emphasis is mine).
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 evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The landlord applied for compensation for odour cleaning and carpet cleaning. The application for odour cleaning was withdrawn at the hearing, which left the claim for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice from [Carpet cleaning company] for $776.66 and a series of photos in support if their application.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant had left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy to the point where commercial carpet cleaners were required. The photos failed to show any evidence of significant carpet staining. The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant name is ordered.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord name and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775937 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775937 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions