What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842885 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4842885?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $494.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pack Tenant'S Belongings Left At Pre…: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Picture Hooks, Screws And…: $51.23 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Tenant'S Belongs Left At…: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,831.60 awarded to landlord; Storage: $2,898.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842885?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11479775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842885 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4842885?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $494.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pack Tenant'S Belongings Left At Pre…: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Picture Hooks, Screws And…: $51.23 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Tenant'S Belongs Left At…: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,831.60 awarded to landlord; Storage: $2,898.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842885?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11479775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842885 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842885 — net $7,049.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2024	$1,831.60	Rent arrears to 8 May 2024
Cleaning: (kitchen cupboards	$57.50	Cleaning: (kitchen cupboards
Cleaning: Major clean	$494.30	Cleaning: Major clean
Oven/stove cleaning	$57.50	Oven/stove cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Pack tenant's belongings left at premises	$690.00	Pack tenant's belongings left at premises
Removal of tenant's belongs left at premises	$736.00	Removal of tenant's belongs left at premises
Removal of picture hooks, screws and curtain tracks	$51.23	Removal of picture hooks, screws and curtain tracks
Storage to 28 March 2025	$2,898.00	Storage to 28 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement: 4842885	$20.44	4842885
Filing fee reimbursement: 4914873	$20.44	4914873
Filing fee reimbursement: 4943655	$20.44	4943655
Net award	$7,049.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,049.95

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842885 — net $7,049.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2024	$1,831.60	Rent arrears to 8 May 2024
Cleaning: (kitchen cupboards	$57.50	Cleaning: (kitchen cupboards
Cleaning: Major clean	$494.30	Cleaning: Major clean
Oven/stove cleaning	$57.50	Oven/stove cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Pack tenant's belongings left at premises	$690.00	Pack tenant's belongings left at premises
Removal of tenant's belongs left at premises	$736.00	Removal of tenant's belongs left at premises
Removal of picture hooks, screws and curtain tracks	$51.23	Removal of picture hooks, screws and curtain tracks
Storage to 28 March 2025	$2,898.00	Storage to 28 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement: 4842885	$20.44	4842885
Filing fee reimbursement: 4914873	$20.44	4914873
Filing fee reimbursement: 4943655	$20.44	4943655
Net award	$7,049.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,049.95

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7,049.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s cross applications are dismissed.
The tenant must provide the landlord with written instructions for a suitable time, place and location for the delivery of all of her stored possessions (at the tenant’s cost). The delivery date must be prior to or on Friday 28 March 2025.
[The landlord/s] must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that were left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord shall then dispose of the other goods that were left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $7,049.95.
[The landlord/s] must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing over three days (30 October 2024, 13 February 2025, 14 February 2025).
Mr [W], Ms [W] and Mr [O] attended for the landlord. Background
The landlord has made three applications covering distinct claims: a. 4842885 (21/03/24) –termination and rent arrears (rehearing). b. 4914873 (20/06/24) – disposal of goods and storage costs. c. 4943665 (18/07/24) –costs incurred following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross applications in respect of each of the above applications. a. 4923039 (filed - 24/06/24) b. 4937215 (filed - 11/07/24) c. 4969584 (filed - 13/08/24)
The tenant’s cross applications cover overlapping matters and some of these matters have already been addressed by previous Orders of the Tribunal or Minutes of the District Court.
All applications were initially set down for a full day hearing on 30 October 2024.
It was intended by the Adjudicator to address the rehearing application in full at this hearing and to adjourn all other claims to a future date over two days as there was clearly not enough time to address all six applications in one day.
The tenant said she had not received the Order dated 11 August 2024 granting a rehearing in relation to the termination and rent arrears claim (4842885) and she had not come prepared to address that issue. A copy of the Order was provided to the Tenant by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the tenant consented to the landlord presenting its three claims to the Tribunal on the basis that an adjournment would be granted to enable the tenant to consider her defence to these claims and to better prepare and clarify her own applications.
As the tenant claimed that she had not received all documentation in relation to the claims in a timely way, the landlord agreed to hand deliver or post any additional material supplied to the Tribunal in relation to any of its claims, to the tenant’s postal address for service which was confirmed at the hearing.
The tenant acknowledged that all matters covered by the six applications currently before the Tribunal would be addressed at the next hearing and that she would come prepared to address all of those matters.
Paragraphs 17-19 above were recorded in my Order dated 30 October 2024.
At the hearing on 30 October 2024, the landlord presented all of its oral and documentary evidence in relation to all three of its claims. These matters are reviewed in paragraphs 10-40 of my Order dated 30 October 2024.
The 30 October 2024 Order also clearly laid out, in some detail, the process to be followed at the next hearing date (paragraphs 41-53).
This included the following paragraph, “The tenant must come to the Tribunal on that date ready to present her defence to the landlord’s claims and with any evidence that related to these claims well prepared and readily available to considered by both the Adjudicator and the landlord. “(paragraph 43 Order dated 30 October 2024).
And further in relation to the tenant’s three cross-applications, “...the tenant must review her claims and communicate them in a way that clearly identifies the alleged breach/es of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.” (paragraph 48 of the Order dated 30 October 2024).
At paragraph 49 the Order says, “[The tenant] must be able to articulate the orders she wishes the Tribunal to make or clearly outline what she is hoping to achieve in pursuing the applications.”
Further instructions were provided as to provision of documentation and attendance of potential witnesses.
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing on 14 February 2025 (in written submissions) that she understood the requirements quoted above.
The hearing which commenced on 30 October 2024 was adjourned part heard to 13 and 14 February 2025.
On the morning of 13 February 2025, the tenant provided some papers to the Adjudicator which she wished to read out. As the process to be followed had been made clear to the parties in the Order dated 30 October 2024, she was asked to proceed with that process (which was also provided to both parties in writing at the beginning of each hearing day).
The document presented to the Tribunal by the tenant traversed a number of matters and provided some historic context to the issues before me but essentially the tenant was requesting that the applications all be adjourned to give her the opportunity to seek legal advice as she considered that she was unable to address the matters herself.
To my mind the tenant has had plenty of time (three and a half months), having heard the landlord’s evidence on 30 October 2024, to have prepared her defence as she was instructed to do in my Order of 30 October 2024.
She acknowledged in written material presented to the Tribunal that she had spent some time going through everything with a friend following the 30 October 2024 hearing. She also acknowledged that she had spoken to Citizen’s Advice on two occasions and Community Law on at least one occasion.
The tenant’s cross applications traverse entirely separate material to the landlord’s claims and were filed in June, July, and August 2024. The tenant has had at least six months to prepare each of those claims.
The tenant has appeared before the Tribunal on a number of occasions and has appealed Tenancy Orders to the District Court several times. She is very familiar with the processes of the Tribunal.
The tenant was also concerned that she had not been given an opportunity to question the landlord about the evidence it presented on 30 October 2024. I explained that the tenant’s opportunity to ask questions and defend her claim was at the hearing days in February 2025.
The tenant appreciated the opportunity to ask questions of the landlord representatives and to have them further explain the claims but wanted to be clear that she did not intend to reply to those claims as she felt she required an adjournment to enable her to prepare to defend the claims.
The tenant provided no acceptable reason as to why matters should be delayed further, and the Tribunal refused her request for a further adjournment during the hearing (a number of times).
As that this tenancy ended on 30 May 2024, it would be a serious miscarriage of justice for the landlord if matters were delayed further, especially in circumstances where clear instructions have been provided to the tenant about what the Tribunal expects of her.
The Tribunal clearly articulated that all applications of each party would be determined following the hearing.
In her applications, written submissions, and oral evidence, the tenant made reference to a number of matters which had already been determined and resolved by either this Tribunal or the District Court.
These include but are not limited to: a. All matters relating to general management of the tenancy prior to June 2022, including earthquake repairs, previous storage costs, rent arrears, landlord compliance with previous orders, alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment, alleged improper service of an attachment order, (addressed by Order 4207456 and subsequent appeal to the District Court). b. Matters relating to which tenancy agreement applies to the tenancy and format of the landlord’s rental summary (determined by Order 4331228).
I clearly explained to the parties during the hearing that these matters, having already been determined under prior applications, could not, and would not be reconsidered. Landlord Application 4842885
Under Application 4842885, the landlord applied for termination, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee on 21 March 2024.
The matter was heard remotely (by telephone) and under an Order dated 7 May 2024, the tenancy was terminated and rent arrears of $1,831.60 (to 8 May 2024) were awarded to the landlord.
The tenant applied for a rehearing and the initial termination Order was stayed, on the basis that the tenant would continue to pay rent, pending determination of that application.
The tenant did not pay rent and the tenancy was terminated. The tenant eventually left the premises on 30 May 2024.
Subsequently, a rehearing determination hearing was held and, in an Order dated 11 August 2024, the application for a rehearing was granted.
The rehearing was granted on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred given that the tenant claimed, “she did not receive the original notice of hearing, application or any of the Landlord’s evidence.” (at paragraph 2).
The tenant had given evidence at the rehearing determination hearing that the address for service recorded for her was out of date.
I note that this is the same address for service now being used by the tenant in two of the three cross-applications filed by the tenant before me and to which the Landlord is to deliver or post all correspondence and information filed in relation to all current matters with the tenant’s consent.
The Order granting the rehearing also records at paragraph 6, “The Tenant says she received the landlord’s application and evidence by post a few days before the hearing which left her insufficient time to prepare her response.”
This is the same application and evidence which the tenant claimed not to have possession of at the beginning of day two of this hearing (13 Feb 2025) and requested an adjournment to have time to consider.
When this was put to her, she claimed that she had possession of the application and evidence, but it remained at the tenancy address after she was evicted (on 30 May 2024) and was then taken to storage by the landlord and she was thereafter unable to access it.
This is unconvincing. The tenant had access to these documents having been sent them by Tenancy Services in May 2024. Even if the papers were left at the Tenancy address on 30 May 2024, the tenant could have contacted Tenancy Services to obtain another copy. She could have obtained a copy from the landlord.
Although this explanation may have been sufficient to grant the rehearing application in August last year, it cannot be that the tenant is able to continue to delay conclusion of these matters on the same basis.
As I clearly pointed out to the tenant at the hearing, the question is simply one of rent arrears, the tenancy having already been terminated.
The landlord provided evidence at the initial hearing of the termination and rent arrears application, that the rent arrears to 8 May 2024 was $1,831.60. Although the tenancy did not end until 30 May 2024, the landlord remains content to claim arrears only to 8 May 2024.
The tenant was reluctant to offer any evidence or submissions in defence of this or any other the landlord’s claims as she wished to have an adjournment as described above.
However, she did explain that she had a number of other demands on her finances at the time, some allegedly related to her claims under her cross- applications. She acknowledged that she had not paid her rent.
She also gave general evidence that she was suffering poor health at this time (also allegedly exacerbated by issues contained in her cross-application).
The tenant acknowledged that she had received a rent summary prior to the initial hearing of this matter but did not accept the landlord’s rent arrears claim. However, she had no evidence to dispute it and she nor did she clearly dispute the claim orally.
The bond for this property is not at the Bond Centre.
The landlord gave evidence that the bond was awarded to the landlord when a previous Tenancy Tribunal Order had terminated this tenancy some years ago. Although that termination had not gone ahead, the bond had been kept in the Tenant’s rent account rather than being returned to the Bond Centre as it should have been.
The landlord acknowledged that this was an oversight and provided evidence to show that the bond was paid as a credit in the Tenant’s rent account on 29 January 2016. The landlord confirmed that the bond has remained as a credit in that account ever since that date.
As such, the bond has reduced the tenant’s rent arrears liability.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy with the bond already having been credited to the Tenant’s rent account.
The amount ordered is proved. Landlord Application 4914873
Under Application 4914873 the landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, storage costs and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This tenancy was terminated as explained above.
The tenant did not leave as required and was evicted on 30 May 2024 by the Bailiffs.
Various items were packed up by the Tenant and left outside in a designated area to be collected shortly after. These items were collected by the tenant.
All other possessions remained at the premises and the landlord provided photographs to support this.
The landlord gave evidence that it telephoned the Tenant on 4 June 2024 requesting that she make contact before 1pm on 7 June 2024 to arrange for collection of her belongings.
The Tenant replied on 5 June to say that her representatives would be in touch to make arrangements.
On that same day, the landlord said that its representatives went to the address to photograph the remaining items and to complete an inventory (as provided to the Tribunal).
A letter was also hand delivered to the address the tenant was (and still is) using as an address for service (across the road from the Tenancy address).
This letter asked for confirmation from the Tenant of a suitable time for the landlord and tenant to meet at the tenancy address to allow the Tenant an opportunity to remove her belongings. The letter provided the same timeframe as the phone call referred to in paragraph 73 above.
It reads: “Please contact [the landlord] by 1pm, Friday 7 June informing us of your suggested time to move the belongings.”
The following day (6 June 2024) the Tenant telephoned the landlord representative to say that she would be in touch by the required time (1pm, 7 June 2024).
The Tenant attended the landlord’s offices at 1pm on 7 June 2024. She had not made any arrangements to do so, and the representative was unavailable. On learning of the tenant’s visit the representative said she phoned the Tenant’s mobile phone three times, but the calls were not answered. The Tenant acknowledged this in her letter referred to below (paragraph 84).
The Tenant called in to the office and said she had attended at 1pm on 7 June. The landlord’s representative explained that she has been asked to make arrangements to remove her belongings before that time and date and the Tenant said she did have a plan to remove her possessions but did not wish to speak about it and would provide written instructions.
The Tenant did not wish to address the matters raised in this application because she thought she should be granted an adjournment. However, she did provide the Tribunal with a copy of her letter to the landlord regarding disposal of her possessions (dated 7 June 2024).
The letter goes into some detail about the events of 30 May 2024 and refers to the ill health allegedly suffered by the Tenant around this time. This included a head injury for which the Tenant claimed to have been treated at Christchurch Hospital.
The Tenant further stated in the letter that she and a support person had attempted to “contact [the landlord], to outline the best plan we thought suitable for the removal of all of the items of property I own as per the contract and the insurance requirements.”
The letter goes on to suggest that the tenant will work with the landlord to remove all items from the tenancy address. Some details are provided as to transportation methods and security details but no dates or times or more specific details are provided.
The landlord provided evidence that they had replied requesting those specific details be advised by 4pm 10 June 2024. No reply was received.
Two days later (12 June 2024) the landlord sent packers to pack the possessions and the following day they were moved to secure storage. The tenant was advised of this by letter and email on 13 June 2024.
On the same day the landlord was contacted by the tenant’s friend, who described themselves as Next-of-Kin, and who asked that all contact in relation to this now go through him. He was not recorded as a next of kin in the landlord’s records, so they forwarded a form for completion, and this was then returned completed.
On receipt of the completed form the landlord sent a copy of its letter of 13 June to the Next of Kin.
No further contact was received from either the tenant or her (then) nominated Next-of-Kin.
The landlord’s representatives made it clear on more than one occasion during the hearing that their preference was that the tenant would make an arrangement to have her belongings delivered to another address and the landlord would happily attend to that.
The tenant suggested that she to go to the landlord’s storage location to sort through her possessions there at her leisure. The landlord explained that given the nature of the facility that was not possible. It was also not possible that the tenant could take over the storage at this place as it is not a public storage facility.
Many of the items clearly have value to the tenant and, according to her, monetary value above the $1,500.00 estimated by the landlord in this application. She went through the photographs of her belongings outlining the age and value of many pieces of furniture and other items.
Given that: a. The tenant has had an opportunity to make arrangements for collection before the goods were taken to storage and she did not do so. b. The landlord has been storing the goods for eight months and cannot continue to do so indefinitely; and c. The Tenant has made no contact in relation to collection or delivery of her goods since 13 June 2024; and d. The landlord is willing to deliver the goods to an address nominated by the tenant provided arrangements are made in a reasonable timeframe; the tenant has until Friday 28 March 2025 to have the goods delivered to an address of her choosing.
If she does not arrange delivery of the goods on or before that date (and at the tenant’s cost), then the landlord is to dispose of the goods as outlined in the orders above.
The landlord also claims the cost of storage at $60 plus GST per week. The claim has been extended to 28 March 2025 to align with the Orders relating to disposal.
An invoice proving the storage costs was provided by the landlord.
Should the tenant arrange delivery prior to 28 March 2025, any consequent reduction in storage costs is to be credited to the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for disposal of goods and storage costs is proven. Landlord Application 4943655
Under application 4943655 the landlord has claimed compensation for costs incurred following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the application fee.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs, and documentary evidence to prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and items were left attached to the walls by various means.
The tenant wished to question the landlord’s representatives in relation to the evidence they presented for this and its other claims and did so at length.
Following this, she wished to be granted an adjournment to seek legal advice prior to responding to the claims.
It is not the practise of this Tribunal to adjourn hearings after each step to enable parties to obtain further advice.
The tenant was well aware that her response to the landlord’s claims was required at this hearing. She acknowledged this in written submissions during the hearing.
Nevertheless, she did not wish to respond either by accepting or denying the landlord’s claims.
During her questioning of the landlord’s representatives, however, it became apparent that certain damage to a wardrobe may not have occurred during this tenancy. The landlord could not say for certain if this was so and withdrew that claim.
Although she did not address the claims directly, the tenant had provided some explanation as to the circumstances around the removal of the wardrobe doors and as a consequence two other claims relating to the same wardrobe were also withdrawn by the landlord (totalling $575.00).
Given the circumstances around the end of the tenancy, the photographs indicate that no cleaning or tidying was completed by the tenant.
The tenant’s possessions were left in place and no end of tenancy cleaning could have been completed nor was any rubbish removed.
The tenant was evicted by the Bailiffs and the locks had to be changed at a cost of $429.36 (reduced to $172.50).
The landlord arranged for: a. cleaning of the premises ($494.30); and b. Oven cleaning ($121.95 reduced to $57.50); and c. Cleaning kitchen cupboards ($120.42 reduced to $57.50); and d. Removal of picture hooks, screws and nails ($51.23); and e. Packing of the tenant’s possessions ($690.00); and f. Moving tenant’s belongings to storage ($736.00).
As is the custom of this landlord, some of the amounts claimed were reduced and do not reflect the actual amount paid out by the landlord but rather are discounted for the benefit of the tenant.
Following removal of the Tenant’s possessions, work commenced on the property including electrical checks. In the process of this checking, further items belonging to the tenant were discovered in the attic and had to be packed (at an additional cost to the landlord of $552.00) and moved to storage. The landlord provided photographs of the additional items and confirmed that these are also now stored in the same facility as the tenant’s other possessions.
At the Hearing in February neither the Adjudicator nor the landlord recalled that an invoice had been provided to the Tribunal for this additional packing cost (under claim number 4943655), so no claim was pursued at the time and the tenant had no opportunity to respond to this claim (for $552.00).
As I now see that an invoice was in fact provided and a claim had been intended, I make no decision in relation to this amount and leave is granted for the landlord to make a claim for this amount at a later date if it should choose to do so.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s Cross-Applications 4923039, 4937215 and 4965984
The Tenant made reference to a wide range of matters in written papers and oral submissions.
These included (but are not limited to): dissatisfaction over how these applications have been managed by Tenancy Services; dissatisfaction over how the Tribunal hearings have been conducted; dissatisfaction over how documents have been distributed to her (or allegedly not distributed on some occasions) and; dissatisfaction about how Tenancy Services have communicated with her in relation to these hearings.
Some of the above matters were alluded to in the three cross-applications. These applications also referred to the following alleged issues: a. Sewage leaking from the toilet at the tenancy address (exemplary damages and $7,200 compensation claimed in application 4923039) b. Work order in relation to the toilet (application 4937215) c. Refund of bond which should have been refunded to the Bond Centre in 2016 (4937215 and 4969584). d. Interference with Insurance contracts (4969584) e. Badgering tenant and her Next-of-Kin whilst she was unwell (4969584) f. Retaliatory application by landlord (4969584)
The Tenant was told in my order dated 30 October 2024 to “review her claims and communicate them in a way that clearly identifies the alleged breach/es of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986,” (at paragraph 48)
Further, she was told to clarify, “the orders she wishes the Tribunal to make or clearly outline what she is hoping to achieve in pursuing these applications.” (paragraph 49)
At paragraph 50 she was told that she, “must ensure that her supporting evidence in relation to each alleged breach is clear and easily accessible at the hearing.”
The tenant has not complied with these instructions and was unwilling or unable to elaborate further at the hearing. She confirmed in her written submissions at the hearing that she understood the requirements of the Order dated 30 October 2024.
The applicant is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In her application number 4923039, there is reference to photographs and summaries of costs and medical expenses with clear statements that these documents, “will be presented at the hearing.”
In application 4937215 the tenant says that the claims, “My costs are well itemised as per Insurance”. And later, that she will supply, “Photographic evidence/letters/transcripts.”
In application 4969584 the tenant says, “$ Will be actualised once the landlord accepts/or is required to accept, by the adjudicator responsibility for withholding information and impact on health & wellbeing.” She goes on to say, “the records I hold show that I notified [agents of the landlord] as soon as I became aware that there were significant problems...”
The tenant confirmed that she had documents referred to above but did not have them with her. No reasonable explanation was given as to why this evidence was not made available to the Tribunal as required by the 30 October 2024 Order.
As I have already said, the cross applications cover matters distinct from the landlord’s claims. They were filed in June, July and August 2024 and the tenant has had at least six months to collate her evidence to support the claims.
I address each matter referred to in paragraph 110 above in sequence.
The landlord provided evidence to show that there had been at least ten requests for toilet repairs by the tenant between 7 January 2019 and 30 October 2023. Each request had been responded to in a timely way.
One of the repairs had included a replacement of the toilet bowl.
One of the callouts (24 October 2021) was attended to urgently as an after- hours matter. The landlord gave evidence that this is the usual path when urgent work is reported by a tenant. None of the other toilet repairs for this tenant were recorded as urgent.
The landlord gave evidence that when a tenant reports a blocked toilet, a plumber is dispatched without question as the landlord said was the case on every occasion for this tenant.
At no time had any plumber ever confirmed the tenant’s suggestion that raw sewage was seeping into the bathroom.
The landlord representatives said if this had been confirmed they would have immediately rehoused the tenant until the problem was properly resolved.
The tenant requested evidence of any repairs that had been completed on the toilet since her tenancy ended and the landlord provided a job order that showed that a “cistern inlet valve” and an “aging ballcock” had been replaced.
The landlord confirmed that the current tenant had reported no problems with the toilet since their tenancy began.
It does seem that there were ongoing problems with the toilet at the tenancy address. It also seems that the landlord attended to each problem as it arose and in a timely way. On some occasions (such as January 2019) the plumber visited three times in quick succession to complete repairs.
On the last reported occasion, the tenant had reported the problem on 16 October 2023 and asked that the plumber not attend until 30 October 2023.
According to the landlord’s assignment schedule there were no further toilet related job assignments at the tenancy address after this non-urgent attendance on 30 October 2023.
The tenant claimed that she had spent at least $4,000 in costs related to the toilet issue and had made her own insurance claim. Some of these costs related to storage of sensitive material that she said could not remain in the property to be contaminated.
She further says in her application that she had suffered ill health and that had been exacerbated by the sewage leaking in her bathroom.
No evidence was provided to support the allegation that sewage was leaking into the property from the toilet and the landlord has provided evidence to refute it.
In relation to the work order sought, the tenant is no longer living at the property and there is no evidence of any ongoing problem with the toilet, so a work order is not appropriate.
In relation to the claim for the bond, the landlord has accepted that the bond should have been returned to the bond centre when a previous order for termination of the tenancy was overturned.
This was an oversight many years ago and the bond amount was credited to the tenant’s rent account and has reduced the amount she owes under this order.
There is no detriment to the tenant and the oversight was unintentional, so no order is required to have the bond returned at this date and the lack of intention on the part of the landlord or harm to the tenant mean that exemplary damages under section 109 of the Act are not appropriate.
In relation to alleged interference with insurance, badgering of the tenant and retaliatory applications, I have received no written or oral evidence to support these claims.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to any of the allegations made in any of the three cross-applications.
The tenant’s cross-applications are dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant requested name suppression in her three cross applications. She was not the successful party, so section 95A(4) of the Act applies and I must have regard to the public interest and the interest of the parties when considering whether to grant name suppression.
The District Court Judge has granted name suppression of the tenant’s details in relation to Order 4207456 and subsequent appeal. In order to preserve that suppression order, I also grant suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. Filing fees
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee for each of the landlord’s three claims. Final points
The matters under discussion during the three hearing days were not easy for the parties, especially after a lengthy and somewhat troubled tenancy, and I wish to thank the attendees for their demeanour and their generally respectful behaviour towards each other and the Tribunal.
There is a clear willingness on the part of the landlord to ensure that the tenant retrieves her valued possessions, and they are eager to do everything reasonable to facilitate that. It is now up to the tenant, and I am hopeful that she will do what needs to be done to be reunited with her belongings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842885 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842885 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions