What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837648 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4837648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837648?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837648 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4837648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837648?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753247-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

222A Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837648 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Mr Gupta attended for the tenants.

This matter relates to a tenancy which started on 21 November 2020 for the premises situated at 222A Campbell Road, Greenlane. Mr Gupta and Ms Subedi were not the original tenants. They joined the tenancy by variation to the tenancy agreement on 3 August 2023. The other existing tenants at that time then gave notice ending their tenancy on 17 January 2024 and Mr Gupta and Ms Subedi’s tenancy was ended by order of the Tribunal in February 2024 (see Tribunal orders 4785058,4782671).

The landlord has filed an application claiming final water rates ($52.01), compensation for a lost garage remote ($166.75) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the date of the hearing, the landlord advised that the outstanding final water rates had since been resolved and they were only pursuing the cost for the lost garage remote.

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

In support of the claim, the landlord relied on evidence that a garage remote was provided at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also produced an invoice to support the cost of the replacement garage remote.

The tenants dispute the claim, stating they had never received or saw a garage remote during their tenancy, which began in 2023. Despite making inquiries with the previous tenants, they could not locate it. They argue it is unfair to be held responsible for a remote they never received, especially since they had only been tenants for 6 months. They also note that multiple tenants have occupied the property since 2020, and the remote could have been lost at any point over the previous 3 years before they joined.

Although Mr Gupta and Ms Subedi were the last tenants in February 2024, the landlord has not sufficiently proven that they received the garage remote at the start of their tenancy and therefore I am not satisfied they should be held responsible for the replacement cost. I note the invoice indicates “Remote left on garage shelf. No power to house so has not been tested”. This seems to support the tenants’ contention that they had never received the remote as if they knew where it was, they would have likely returned it. The application is therefore dismissed.

The landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed because the landlord did not wholly or substantially succeed in its claim.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Mr Gupta attended for the tenants.

The landlord has filed an application claiming final water rates ($52.01), compensation for a lost garage remote ($166.75) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the date of the hearing, the landlord advised that the outstanding final water rates had since been resolved and they were only pursuing the cost for the lost garage remote.

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

The landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed because the landlord did not wholly or substantially succeed in its claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837648 — Tenancy dispute at 222A Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837648 — Tenancy dispute at 222A Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions