What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933053 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4933053?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933053?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758007-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933053 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4933053?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933053?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758007-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Tea Tree Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933053 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933053 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord is to pay the filing fee of $27.00 to the tenant immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote video hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
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. Despite this, the tenant consented to the landlord claims for compensation being heard. I accepted the landlord’s application to have them heard.
The tenant application is straight forward. The tenant says that a bond of $2,720.00 has been paid and the bond lodged with the Bond Centre.
The tenancy ended on 9 June 2024 and the tenant has applied to have his bond money released. The landlord says that they are entitled to be paid compensation from the bond funds.
The tenant says that at all times relevant to the application, the landlord was Windy City Property Management (“Windy City”).
The tenant only became aware that the contract between the owners (the Choudhurys) and Windy City had terminated, after the tenancy had ended.
The tenant says that a final inspection of the premises was carried out by Windy City and that they were happy with the condition of the premises.
The Choudhurys inspected the premises after the end of the tenancy. They raised a number of concerns; • The garage door did not operate. • There was a stain on the carpet. • The extractor fan in the bathroom did not work. • The rangehood was not clean.
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 claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming as compensation 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).
I record first, that there is no obligation on tenants to fix malfunctioning items within the tenancy. The obligation is to report items that are not working to the landlord. For that reason, the claims regarding the garage and extractor fan are dismissed. There was no suggestion by the landlords that the tenant had intentionally damaged the items.
The claim relating to the carpet was disputed by the tenant. The tenant called the previous property manager from Windy City to give evidence. He said that the stain pre dated the tenancy. The burden of proving the claim relating to the carpet is on the landlord. I do not consider that the landlord evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the carpet was damaged by the tenant and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the rangehood had not been left reasonably clean.
The tenant disputed this. The tenant’s witness from Windy City said that he had completed a final inspection of the property and said that not only was it reasonably clean and tidy, but it was also in better condition than it was at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided correspondence between themselves and Windy City indicating that Windy City had said that they would ask the tenant to return to clean the range hood. The tenant did not return to carry out further cleaning. The sole issue for the Tribunal is whether the rangehood was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord statement indicates that they expected the tenant to employ “professional cleaning”, which is not a requirement under the terms of the RTA.
In all the circumstances, the landlord claims for compensation are dismissed for want of proof to the civil standard.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this application and suppression of the tenant name is granted. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933053 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord is to pay the filing fee of $27.00 to the tenant immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote video hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
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. Despite this, the tenant consented to the landlord claims for compensation being heard. I accepted the landlord’s application to have them heard.
The tenant application is straight forward. The tenant says that a bond of $2,720.00 has been paid and the bond lodged with the Bond Centre.
The tenancy ended on 9 June 2024 and the tenant has applied to have his bond money released. The landlord says that they are entitled to be paid compensation from the bond funds.
The tenant says that at all times relevant to the application, the landlord was Windy City Property Management (“Windy City”).
The tenant only became aware that the contract between the owners (the Choudhurys) and Windy City had terminated, after the tenancy had ended.
The tenant says that a final inspection of the premises was carried out by Windy City and that they were happy with the condition of the premises.
The Choudhurys inspected the premises after the end of the tenancy. They raised a number of concerns; • The garage door did not operate. • There was a stain on the carpet. • The extractor fan in the bathroom did not work. • The rangehood was not clean.
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 claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming as compensation 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).
I record first, that there is no obligation on tenants to fix malfunctioning items within the tenancy. The obligation is to report items that are not working to the landlord. For that reason, the claims regarding the garage and extractor fan are dismissed. There was no suggestion by the landlords that the tenant had intentionally damaged the items.
The claim relating to the carpet was disputed by the tenant. The tenant called the previous property manager from Windy City to give evidence. He said that the stain pre dated the tenancy. The burden of proving the claim relating to the carpet is on the landlord. I do not consider that the landlord evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the carpet was damaged by the tenant and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the rangehood had not been left reasonably clean.
The tenant disputed this. The tenant’s witness from Windy City said that he had completed a final inspection of the property and said that not only was it reasonably clean and tidy, but it was also in better condition than it was at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord provided correspondence between themselves and Windy City indicating that Windy City had said that they would ask the tenant to return to clean the range hood. The tenant did not return to carry out further cleaning. The sole issue for the Tribunal is whether the rangehood was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord statement indicates that they expected the tenant to employ “professional cleaning”, which is not a requirement under the terms of the RTA.
In all the circumstances, the landlord claims for compensation are dismissed for want of proof to the civil standard.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this application and suppression of the tenant name is granted. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933053 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Tea Tree Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933053 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Tea Tree Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

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