What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965594 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4965594?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965594?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11356031-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965594 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4965594?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965594?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11356031-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965594 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $750.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Pei-En Chang Jenny Parry must immediately pay the tenants $27 being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by video conference. The tenants attended by phone.
This is a cross application.
The tenant has applied for refund of the balance of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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. Landlord’s claim
The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2023 and ended on 27 May 2024.
The landlord claims compensation on the basis the tenant failed to notify them of a leak behind a wall in the kitchen.
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $750.00 in respect of an insurance claim for damage to the premises from the leak. The invoice in respect of the insurance claim was not provided by the landlord.
A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. 1
There was a routine inspection on 9 August 2023. The landlord says the inspection report records there was no obvious sign of a leak or damage under the sink. The landlord says damage from the leak was evident on 3 October 2024 when the tenant notified them of the issue. The landlord did not attend to the repair until 7 November 2024, that is over a month after being notified.
The tenant says they notified the landlord of a dampness issue that they thought was condensation at the 9 August 2023 inspection.
The tenant says they then informed the landlord of the issue again on 3 October 2023 as the mould and condensation under the kitchen sink was getting worse. It is not clear that the tenant attributed this to a leak behind the wall. 1 See section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
I find the landlord has not established any delay in the tenant notifying them as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or the need for the leak to be repaired. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Bond
The balance of the bond is to be refunded the tenant. Filing fee
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The landlord sought suppression if successful but not if successful. The landlord has been unsuccessful therefore the is no order for name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $750.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Pei-En Chang Jenny Parry must immediately pay the tenants $27 being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by video conference. The tenants attended by phone.
This is a cross application.
The tenant has applied for refund of the balance of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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. Landlord’s claim
The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2023 and ended on 27 May 2024.
The landlord claims compensation on the basis the tenant failed to notify them of a leak behind a wall in the kitchen.
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $750.00 in respect of an insurance claim for damage to the premises from the leak. The invoice in respect of the insurance claim was not provided by the landlord.
A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. 1
There was a routine inspection on 9 August 2023. The landlord says the inspection report records there was no obvious sign of a leak or damage under the sink. The landlord says damage from the leak was evident on 3 October 2024 when the tenant notified them of the issue. The landlord did not attend to the repair until 7 November 2024, that is over a month after being notified.
The tenant says they notified the landlord of a dampness issue that they thought was condensation at the 9 August 2023 inspection.
The tenant says they then informed the landlord of the issue again on 3 October 2023 as the mould and condensation under the kitchen sink was getting worse. It is not clear that the tenant attributed this to a leak behind the wall. 1 See section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
I find the landlord has not established any delay in the tenant notifying them as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or the need for the leak to be repaired. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Bond
The balance of the bond is to be refunded the tenant. Filing fee
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The landlord sought suppression if successful but not if successful. The landlord has been unsuccessful therefore the is no order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965594 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965594 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions