How much money was awarded in case 4889002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4889002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4889002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4889002?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4889002?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4889002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4889002 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4889002 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $720.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $20.44 Courtney Cooper: $699.56
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage and garden work are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence. Damage and gardens
The landlord has claimed the bond for the repair of a broken window, a hole in the wall and gardening work done throughout the tenancy.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
There was insufficient evidence to support these claims. The landlord had no probative evidence of the damage he says was done or the condition of the garden, he had no evidence from the start of the tenancy and no evidence of any loss.
These claims are dismissed. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant has left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was told by the tenant on 3 May that she would not be returning to collect her items. This is noted in an earlier order of the Tribunal in case [2024] NZTT 4811477.
Following that hearing the landlord provided evidence that he had contacted the tenant on a number of occasions but she had not responded save on 31 May 2024 when she asked the landlord if she could ‘grab’ some of her things. The landlord responded the same day to arrange a collection time, but the tenant did not then respond.
The landlord therefore is unable to contact the tenant and has been unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods due to her lack of communication.
The landlord had photographs of some of the items left including clothing and a mattress, children’s toys and small personal effects. The landlord says there is also an old TV which probably does not go, and an old fridge that is unusable as it is full of decaying food as well as two single beds and a child’s bed. There are also some chairs and rubbish. The landlord says there are a few personal papers but he does not know what they are as he didn’t want to read them. The landlord says the value of the goods is nil – it is rubbish.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. I accept that the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Personal documents must be handed to the police as set out in my order.
Because the landlord has had some success, I have reimbursed the filing fee from the bond.
The landlord asked if he could have the bond to cover storage costs. This was not part of the application as filed and so I did not consider this. The tenant must have adequate notice of the claims made against her. In any event, I note that in making such a claim a landlord needs to show loss and to mitigate that loss. Given the landlord considers the items to have no value the landlord could have mitigated his loss by using the provisions s62A RTA.
The landlord seeks name suppression. I have awarded this as the landlord has been successful in relation to his clam to dispose of the tenant’s goods (s95A, RTA).

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $720.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $20.44 Courtney Cooper: $699.56

[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage and garden work are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence. Damage and gardens

The landlord has claimed the bond for the repair of a broken window, a hole in the wall and gardening work done throughout the tenancy.

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

There was insufficient evidence to support these claims. The landlord had no probative evidence of the damage he says was done or the condition of the garden, he had no evidence from the start of the tenancy and no evidence of any loss.

These claims are dismissed. Disposal of goods

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant has left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord was told by the tenant on 3 May that she would not be returning to collect her items. This is noted in an earlier order of the Tribunal in case [2024] NZTT 4811477.

Following that hearing the landlord provided evidence that he had contacted the tenant on a number of occasions but she had not responded save on 31 May 2024 when she asked the landlord if she could ‘grab’ some of her things. The landlord responded the same day to arrange a collection time, but the tenant did not then respond.

The landlord therefore is unable to contact the tenant and has been unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods due to her lack of communication.

The landlord had photographs of some of the items left including clothing and a mattress, children’s toys and small personal effects. The landlord says there is also an old TV which probably does not go, and an old fridge that is unusable as it is full of decaying food as well as two single beds and a child’s bed. There are also some chairs and rubbish. The landlord says there are a few personal papers but he does not know what they are as he didn’t want to read them. The landlord says the value of the goods is nil – it is rubbish.

It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. I accept that the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Personal documents must be handed to the police as set out in my order.

Because the landlord has had some success, I have reimbursed the filing fee from the bond.

The landlord asked if he could have the bond to cover storage costs. This was not part of the application as filed and so I did not consider this. The tenant must have adequate notice of the claims made against her. In any event, I note that in making such a claim a landlord needs to show loss and to mitigate that loss. Given the landlord considers the items to have no value the landlord could have mitigated his loss by using the provisions s62A RTA.

The landlord seeks name suppression. I have awarded this as the landlord has been successful in relation to his clam to dispose of the tenant’s goods (s95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4889002 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4889002 — Tenancy dispute

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