What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877501 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4877501?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877501?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877501 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4877501?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877501?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877501 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 21 August 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 to establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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 obligation to show that something is more likely than not 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: “ like 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).
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for damage, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that tenant has breached their obligations on two separate occasions by; • Damaging the property and chattels; and • Having a pet on the premises.
The landlord served the first 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 February 2024. The notice says that the tenant is in breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement by; • Marking the carpet. • Breaking a door stopper. • Losing the heat pump remote • Staining areas close to and surrounding the shower.
The tenant said that the door stopper had been fixed as required.
On being asked if the other issues complained of were present at the commencement to the tenancy, the landlord was unable to say. This is not this particular property managers fault, as she has only recently taken over the file.
The consequences to a tenant in failing to comply with a 14 day breach notice are significant and include termination of the tenancy. In those circumstances, I require some evidence that the issues complained of were caused by the tenant. Generally, the landlord would provide a copy of a pre tenancy inspection report or photos to show that the premises were in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I have no evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. This application is dismissed as the burden of proving the claim is on the landlord.
A second 14 day notice was served on the tenant on 3 April 2024. The parties accept that the notice has been complied with by the tenant and that application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the damage referred to in the first 14 day notice.
I do not have sufficient evidence to show that the damage was caused by the tenant during this tenancy. No evidence of the amount claimed for damages has been filed by the landlord. Usually, an invoice or estimate would be provided.
The application for compensation is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful and suppression of the tenant name is ordered.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and accordingly I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 21 August 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 to establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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 obligation to show that something is more likely than not 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: “ like 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).
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for damage, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that tenant has breached their obligations on two separate occasions by; • Damaging the property and chattels; and • Having a pet on the premises.
The landlord served the first 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 February 2024. The notice says that the tenant is in breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement by; • Marking the carpet. • Breaking a door stopper. • Losing the heat pump remote • Staining areas close to and surrounding the shower.
The tenant said that the door stopper had been fixed as required.
On being asked if the other issues complained of were present at the commencement to the tenancy, the landlord was unable to say. This is not this particular property managers fault, as she has only recently taken over the file.
The consequences to a tenant in failing to comply with a 14 day breach notice are significant and include termination of the tenancy. In those circumstances, I require some evidence that the issues complained of were caused by the tenant. Generally, the landlord would provide a copy of a pre tenancy inspection report or photos to show that the premises were in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I have no evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. This application is dismissed as the burden of proving the claim is on the landlord.
A second 14 day notice was served on the tenant on 3 April 2024. The parties accept that the notice has been complied with by the tenant and that application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the damage referred to in the first 14 day notice.
I do not have sufficient evidence to show that the damage was caused by the tenant during this tenancy. No evidence of the amount claimed for damages has been filed by the landlord. Usually, an invoice or estimate would be provided.
The application for compensation is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful and suppression of the tenant name is ordered.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and accordingly I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877501 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877501 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions