What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873243 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4873243?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873243?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10959106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873243 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4873243?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873243?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10959106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

128 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873243 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties were assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a tenant application, that means that it is for the tenant to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
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 applicant claims that his former landlord disposed of a bag of his belongings after his tenancy ended.
The tenancy started on 21 January 2022 and ended on 1 October 2023. The tenant says that he was renting a room within a house. He says that there were a total of 5 people residing within the premises.
The tenant says that he left some luggage behind when he moved out. The tenant travelled to China and asked the landlord whether he could leave his bags at the house. The bags were left in a storage area above the garage of the house.
The tenant left for China on 1 October 2023 but did not talk to the landlord regarding how long he would be away. The tenant says that his plan was to be away for approximately 3 to 4 months. He says that the landlord would not have been aware of how long the tenant was going to be away for. The tenant arrived back in New Zealand on or about 6 March 2024. The bag that was disposed of was a black plastic bag.
On arrival back in New Zealand the tenant discovered that one of his bags had been disposed of. The tenant turned up to the property on 9 March 2024 to collect his bags. The same night when he was unpacking, he discovered that one bag was missing. He claims that the landlord disposed of one of his bags.
The tenant claims $1206.00 compensation based on the contents of the bag. No evidence has been provided of the contents.
The tenant called the landlord. He also sent a WeChat message. He says that the landlord refused to communicate with him. She also refused his WeChat requests and refused to communicate with him over the phone. He says that she then blacklisted his phone number and blacklisted his WeChat. He also claims that his former roommate told him that the landlord disposed of a bag of rubbish. This communication was made via WhatsApp.
The landlord handed up a written explanation in response during the hearing. The landlord denies disposing of any of the bag which knowingly belonged to the tenant. The landlord did accept that she threw away some bags of rubbish but stated that this rubbish could have belonged to any former tenant. She stated that tenants kept moving in and out and could have mistaken the bag with one of theirs.
The landlord says that the tenant asked if he could store some of his bags. He did not describe the belongings or show them to her. The garage at the property was used for storage of tenant items so she advised him that he could leave his items in the garage for free. She also advised him that she would not take responsibility for his belongings and if he wanted them stored safely then he should take them with him.
Towards the end of October 2023, the landlord undertook a final inspection for a different tenant and discovered the garage was in disarray with items scattered everywhere. Another tenant asked her to clear a corner of the garage so that he could store some belongings. It was then when the landlord threw away some items which she determined as being rubbish. She says there were unlabeled suitcases which she did not throw out. In November 2023 another new tenant moved in and stored some belongings in the garage.
In February 2024 two tenants moved out and the landlord engaged the services of a cleaning company to clean part of the house including the garage. She says that the cleaning company threw out a few bags of rubbish.
The landlord says that she allowed the tenant nearly 5 months of free storage and that she advised him that she would not take responsibility for his belongings. She confirmed that she disposed of some household rubbish from the garage. The landlord handed up photographic evidence during the hearing of the storage area of the garage. The photographs clearly showed some suitcases along with other belongings.
The tenant responded to the landlord’s statement confirming that he left some of his items there after he had a discussion with the landlord. She agreed to allow him to store his bags there. The tenant says that his roommate told him that it was the landlord who disposed of his bag. The tenant has not produced a witness in support of this claim.
The tenant did provide a screenshot of a message from the landlord confirming that she threw some of rubbish away. The tenant says he did not leave any rubbish with his landlord. The tenant also says that on 11 March 2024 he checked his phone and discovered he lost one of his bags.
In support of the tenant’s claim a screenshot of communication from the landlord to another tenant was provided the application. The message from the landlord read “he left lots of rubbish as well. I throwed away, hate that!” Analysis:
I am far from satisfied that this is a tenancy issue. The tenancy ended on 1 October 2023. The tenant made an informal arrangement with his former landlord to store his personal belongings. The tenant is claiming compensation of $1206.00 based on the contents of a black plastic bag which he says the landlord disposed of.
There is no evidence before me which confirms that this is a dispute which comes under the Residential Tenancies Act. The tenancy had ended and the tenant was merely seeking the landlord’s indulgence in respect of his personal belongings while he was overseas. There was no contractual obligation owed by the landlord in respect of this. It is also my view that there was no duty of care owed to the tenant by the landlord. His belongings were stored there on an “all care, no responsibility” basis.
Even if this was a matter which came under the Residential Tenancies Act it is still my view that the tenant has not produced any evidence of the contents of the bag and the associated value. There is also no evidence which confirms that the landlord deliberately disposed of a bag knowing that it contained the tenant’s personal belongings. If nothing else, it would appear that this was an honest mistake by the landlord.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties were assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a tenant application, that means that it is for the tenant to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
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 applicant claims that his former landlord disposed of a bag of his belongings after his tenancy ended.
The tenancy started on 21 January 2022 and ended on 1 October 2023. The tenant says that he was renting a room within a house. He says that there were a total of 5 people residing within the premises.
The tenant says that he left some luggage behind when he moved out. The tenant travelled to China and asked the landlord whether he could leave his bags at the house. The bags were left in a storage area above the garage of the house.
The tenant left for China on 1 October 2023 but did not talk to the landlord regarding how long he would be away. The tenant says that his plan was to be away for approximately 3 to 4 months. He says that the landlord would not have been aware of how long the tenant was going to be away for. The tenant arrived back in New Zealand on or about 6 March 2024. The bag that was disposed of was a black plastic bag.
On arrival back in New Zealand the tenant discovered that one of his bags had been disposed of. The tenant turned up to the property on 9 March 2024 to collect his bags. The same night when he was unpacking, he discovered that one bag was missing. He claims that the landlord disposed of one of his bags.
The tenant claims $1206.00 compensation based on the contents of the bag. No evidence has been provided of the contents.
The tenant called the landlord. He also sent a WeChat message. He says that the landlord refused to communicate with him. She also refused his WeChat requests and refused to communicate with him over the phone. He says that she then blacklisted his phone number and blacklisted his WeChat. He also claims that his former roommate told him that the landlord disposed of a bag of rubbish. This communication was made via WhatsApp.
The landlord handed up a written explanation in response during the hearing. The landlord denies disposing of any of the bag which knowingly belonged to the tenant. The landlord did accept that she threw away some bags of rubbish but stated that this rubbish could have belonged to any former tenant. She stated that tenants kept moving in and out and could have mistaken the bag with one of theirs.
The landlord says that the tenant asked if he could store some of his bags. He did not describe the belongings or show them to her. The garage at the property was used for storage of tenant items so she advised him that he could leave his items in the garage for free. She also advised him that she would not take responsibility for his belongings and if he wanted them stored safely then he should take them with him.
Towards the end of October 2023, the landlord undertook a final inspection for a different tenant and discovered the garage was in disarray with items scattered everywhere. Another tenant asked her to clear a corner of the garage so that he could store some belongings. It was then when the landlord threw away some items which she determined as being rubbish. She says there were unlabeled suitcases which she did not throw out. In November 2023 another new tenant moved in and stored some belongings in the garage.
In February 2024 two tenants moved out and the landlord engaged the services of a cleaning company to clean part of the house including the garage. She says that the cleaning company threw out a few bags of rubbish.
The landlord says that she allowed the tenant nearly 5 months of free storage and that she advised him that she would not take responsibility for his belongings. She confirmed that she disposed of some household rubbish from the garage. The landlord handed up photographic evidence during the hearing of the storage area of the garage. The photographs clearly showed some suitcases along with other belongings.
The tenant responded to the landlord’s statement confirming that he left some of his items there after he had a discussion with the landlord. She agreed to allow him to store his bags there. The tenant says that his roommate told him that it was the landlord who disposed of his bag. The tenant has not produced a witness in support of this claim.
The tenant did provide a screenshot of a message from the landlord confirming that she threw some of rubbish away. The tenant says he did not leave any rubbish with his landlord. The tenant also says that on 11 March 2024 he checked his phone and discovered he lost one of his bags.
In support of the tenant’s claim a screenshot of communication from the landlord to another tenant was provided the application. The message from the landlord read “he left lots of rubbish as well. I throwed away, hate that!” Analysis:
I am far from satisfied that this is a tenancy issue. The tenancy ended on 1 October 2023. The tenant made an informal arrangement with his former landlord to store his personal belongings. The tenant is claiming compensation of $1206.00 based on the contents of a black plastic bag which he says the landlord disposed of.
There is no evidence before me which confirms that this is a dispute which comes under the Residential Tenancies Act. The tenancy had ended and the tenant was merely seeking the landlord’s indulgence in respect of his personal belongings while he was overseas. There was no contractual obligation owed by the landlord in respect of this. It is also my view that there was no duty of care owed to the tenant by the landlord. His belongings were stored there on an “all care, no responsibility” basis.
Even if this was a matter which came under the Residential Tenancies Act it is still my view that the tenant has not produced any evidence of the contents of the bag and the associated value. There is also no evidence which confirms that the landlord deliberately disposed of a bag knowing that it contained the tenant’s personal belongings. If nothing else, it would appear that this was an honest mistake by the landlord.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873243 — Cleanliness at 128 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873243 — Cleanliness at 128 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

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