What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020133 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5020133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020133 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5020133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168388-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 18 Mount Smart Road, Royal Oak, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020133 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant lodged an application for termination and payment of a bill for $854.00. A notice to remedy was served 11 September 2024 and not remedied.
The landlord did not seek termination at the hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
The tenant here is a provider of social housing. They placed a tenant at the same address shortly after entering into this tenancy agreement on 6 July 2022.
On 11 June 2024 Chorus attended the address to repair an internet fibre connection. It appears this was in response to a call from the sub-tenant as his internet was not working but hat is not proven.
Chorus attended, made the repair and the owner unexpectedly received a letter from Chorus, sent 21 June 2024.
The letter read, in part:
The letter further noted:
The landlord here had direct contact with the sub-tenant regarding this issue. She recounted being told by him that the contractor assured him there would be no cost for any repair. How the sub-tenant notified Chorus is unknown. It is assumed he contacted then directly.
The company website instructs:
Based on the above, any damage must first be found as being somebodies’ responsibility before any liability for any subsequent cost is established.
It was unclear how or when the fibre connection was installed.
The location of the damage was “At unit #2 and #3 under the house”. The premises is #5.
The cause of damage was recorded as “unknown” by the contractor.
Upon receipt of the letter, the owner had four options (see letter extract above). It appears to have chosen option 1 and paid the invoice. The landlord later raised a notice to remedy on 11 September 2024 to recover that owner payment from the tenant.
The tenant disputes liability.
It is noted in the letter from Chorus that if liability is disputed they request the name, explanation of why they are at fault, and any evidence (such as photos).
Such evidence is not dissimilar to what is required in this Tribunal. Apart from the letter and invoice, I only have the recounting of the sub-tenant to the landlord that he was told there would be no cost. I have no evidence to link the sub-tenant to the “unknown” damage, or that any potential cost was accepted by the sub-tenant.
I do not consider it unreasonable for a tenant who is the contracted party to an internet provider to utilise any fault notification service as available. If the provider requires authority for any repair costs to be incurred, it behoves them to obtain that at the time, unless there is a separate contractual provision with the party they later seek recovery from that allows such. I have no evidence of either agreement.
Given the lack of evidence to establish tenant liability (even when looking through this tenancy agreement to the one between the respondent and sub- tenant) I dismiss the claim for tenant compensation of the invoice.

What if network gets accidentally damaged?

If you damage or see damage to our network, then remember to firstly keep yourself and the site safe. Then please report it as soon as possible, either by filling in thisonlineformor calling 0800 4 NETWORK (0800 463 896 Opt 2). It’s best if you don’t attempt to move any Chorus network yourself. If there are any damages to the network the person or company responsible for the damage will be liable for the cost of repair.

I note the Chorus letter also provides an alternate resolution through insurance. The recorded excess for this tenancy is $300.00. It would appear the protection of the insurance (there has been no suggestion of intentional damage) could have been sought to mitigate the loss.
From the submissions heard, I have some sympathy with the owner who had no direct involvement in the cause or subsequent repair. However, any recourse for compensation via the sub-tenant is not proven. Alternative dispute resolution pathways with Chorus may be available to the owner.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant lodged an application for termination and payment of a bill for $854.00. A notice to remedy was served 11 September 2024 and not remedied.
The landlord did not seek termination at the hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
The tenant here is a provider of social housing. They placed a tenant at the same address shortly after entering into this tenancy agreement on 6 July 2022.
On 11 June 2024 Chorus attended the address to repair an internet fibre connection. It appears this was in response to a call from the sub-tenant as his internet was not working but hat is not proven.
Chorus attended, made the repair and the owner unexpectedly received a letter from Chorus, sent 21 June 2024.
The letter read, in part:
The letter further noted:
The landlord here had direct contact with the sub-tenant regarding this issue. She recounted being told by him that the contractor assured him there would be no cost for any repair. How the sub-tenant notified Chorus is unknown. It is assumed he contacted then directly.
The company website instructs:
Based on the above, any damage must first be found as being somebodies’ responsibility before any liability for any subsequent cost is established.
It was unclear how or when the fibre connection was installed.
The location of the damage was “At unit #2 and #3 under the house”. The premises is #5.
The cause of damage was recorded as “unknown” by the contractor.
Upon receipt of the letter, the owner had four options (see letter extract above). It appears to have chosen option 1 and paid the invoice. The landlord later raised a notice to remedy on 11 September 2024 to recover that owner payment from the tenant.
The tenant disputes liability.
It is noted in the letter from Chorus that if liability is disputed they request the name, explanation of why they are at fault, and any evidence (such as photos).
Such evidence is not dissimilar to what is required in this Tribunal. Apart from the letter and invoice, I only have the recounting of the sub-tenant to the landlord that he was told there would be no cost. I have no evidence to link the sub-tenant to the “unknown” damage, or that any potential cost was accepted by the sub-tenant.
I do not consider it unreasonable for a tenant who is the contracted party to an internet provider to utilise any fault notification service as available. If the provider requires authority for any repair costs to be incurred, it behoves them to obtain that at the time, unless there is a separate contractual provision with the party they later seek recovery from that allows such. I have no evidence of either agreement.
Given the lack of evidence to establish tenant liability (even when looking through this tenancy agreement to the one between the respondent and sub- tenant) I dismiss the claim for tenant compensation of the invoice.

What if network gets accidentally damaged?

I note the Chorus letter also provides an alternate resolution through insurance. The recorded excess for this tenancy is $300.00. It would appear the protection of the insurance (there has been no suggestion of intentional damage) could have been sought to mitigate the loss.
From the submissions heard, I have some sympathy with the owner who had no direct involvement in the cause or subsequent repair. However, any recourse for compensation via the sub-tenant is not proven. Alternative dispute resolution pathways with Chorus may be available to the owner.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020133 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 18 Mount Smart Road, Royal Oak, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020133 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 18 Mount Smart Road, Royal Oak, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What if network gets accidentally damaged?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What if network gets accidentally damaged?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions