What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837680 about?

The tribunal order states: Govarthanan Vetharaniyam must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4837680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837680 about?

The tribunal order states: Govarthanan Vetharaniyam must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4837680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23B Morrie Laing Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837680 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Govarthanan Vetharaniyam must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately, being the bond.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenant sought the return of her bond. A portion of it was in dispute due to a damaged curtain fixture.
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 hearing was set down to initially consider jurisdiction. Section 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.
Given the single dispute, the landlord did not seek to challenge jurisdiction in this matter and the parties agreed to have the dispute determined today. Such a step was pragmatic and is not binding on any future applications where jurisdiction may be challenged. This was a verbal agreement. He was advised to formalise his agreements with his tenant or flatmates to better assert what he believes the arrangement to be. The template forms available from Tenancy Services were advised.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Given the informal arrangement and the mutual agreement to proceed today I have not returned the bond on the basis of s 22B RTA. I have considered the damage to the curtain.
As explained at the hearing, I needed to first establish the more than likely cause. Was it fair wear or damage caused by careless use?
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
In this instance, I do not find the landlord has been able to establish the damage is more than fair wear. The curtains are of approximately four years age and the damage cannot be discounted as gradual through expected use, especially in a tenanted situation. Therefore, the bond must be returned to the tenant.
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.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.

The tenant sought the return of her bond. A portion of it was in dispute due to a damaged curtain fixture.

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 hearing was set down to initially consider jurisdiction. Section 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.

Given the single dispute, the landlord did not seek to challenge jurisdiction in this matter and the parties agreed to have the dispute determined today. Such a step was pragmatic and is not binding on any future applications where jurisdiction may be challenged. This was a verbal agreement. He was advised to formalise his agreements with his tenant or flatmates to better assert what he believes the arrangement to be. The template forms available from Tenancy Services were advised.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Given the informal arrangement and the mutual agreement to proceed today I have not returned the bond on the basis of s 22B RTA. I have considered the damage to the curtain.

As explained at the hearing, I needed to first establish the more than likely cause. Was it fair wear or damage caused by careless use?

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

In this instance, I do not find the landlord has been able to establish the damage is more than fair wear. The curtains are of approximately four years age and the damage cannot be discounted as gradual through expected use, especially in a tenanted situation. Therefore, the bond must be returned to the tenant.

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.

The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837680 — Tenancy dispute at 23B Morrie Laing Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837680 — Tenancy dispute at 23B Morrie Laing Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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