What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065648 about?

The tribunal order states: I grant an Order supressing the Tenants’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5065648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065648?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065648 about?

The tribunal order states: I grant an Order supressing the Tenants’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5065648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065648?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065648 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended by phone despite being advised by the Registry of the disadvantage of not being present at the hearing in person.

The Landlord claims he was scared of being assaulted by the Tenant. However, there are three trained security guards present at Court and the Tenant has his partner and their small child with him.

The Tenant presented several videos on USB, which I viewed. In those videos, the Landlord and the Tenant are both seen to be escalating the situation. They are aggressive. Both are arguing loudly with each other. It concerned me that the Landlord remained at the property and did not leave.

In another video, the Landlord is inside the property with the Tenant, and there are no threats of violence, as the pair inspect the property together. The Landlord does not appear intimidated or scared and challenges the tenant on several points as they discuss the condition of the premises before the tenancy and at the time of inspection.

The Applicant claims rent arrears and compensation for damages.

The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The Landlord’s rent arrears claim was granted on 14 January 2025.

The Tenant claims the home did not meet healthy homes standards. I have discerned from the Tenant’s photograph and video evidence that there are quite possibly issues with the home’s compliance, but the Tenant has not brought a cross-application and having had one adjournment already – with directions enabling the parties to file further evidence – I have proceeded to finally determine the matter.

In terms of the Landlord’s compensation claims, I address these in turn: a. Kitchen doors and panels water damaged $2000.00 – the Landlord was asked to get an independent opinion on the cause of the damage. He obtained an opinion from a local kitchen company. He is a co-director of that company. I am not prepared to put any weight on the opinion, and I am unconvinced of the Landlord’s claim, given the Tenant’s plausible alternative explanation. b. Glass and window latch $515.00 – I find the Tenant’s claim of how the window broking credible and compelling. He explained, seamlessly, how the window latch was loose (there was a lose hinge on a door in the home also) and the lever came of the window latch notch before he could close the window. The door blew out and the lever smashed into the window, causing it to smash from the point of the lever knobs impact. Having seen the crack in the window the radius of the extended lever from the latch, the explanation makes sense to me and is more logical compared to the Landlord claim that the Tenant slammed the window, causing it to smash, for if it had been slammed shut, I would not have expected there to be a focused point of impact a quarter of the way up the pane, with webbing around it. c. Wall damaged sketching damage and door stopper broken $370.00 – the landlord presented no evidence of these areas prior to the commencement of the tenancy and the Tenant said there was never any stopper on the door, which means photographs are important. Pre-tenancy inspection checklists are unreliable for these areas.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the Tenant is liable for damage. Corrigendum

I have amended this Order, by agreement of the parties, to ensure this Order is consistent with the Tribunal Order of 14 January 2025.

Order

(BY CONSENT)

I grant an Order supressing the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended by phone despite being advised by the Registry of the disadvantage of not being present at the hearing in person.
The Landlord claims he was scared of being assaulted by the Tenant. However, there are three trained security guards present at Court and the Tenant has his partner and their small child with him.
The Tenant presented several videos on USB, which I viewed. In those videos, the Landlord and the Tenant are both seen to be escalating the situation. They are aggressive. Both are arguing loudly with each other. It concerned me that the Landlord remained at the property and did not leave.
In another video, the Landlord is inside the property with the Tenant, and there are no threats of violence, as the pair inspect the property together. The Landlord does not appear intimidated or scared and challenges the tenant on several points as they discuss the condition of the premises before the tenancy and at the time of inspection.
The Applicant claims rent arrears and compensation for damages.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Landlord’s rent arrears claim was granted on 14 January 2025.
The Tenant claims the home did not meet healthy homes standards. I have discerned from the Tenant’s photograph and video evidence that there are quite possibly issues with the home’s compliance, but the Tenant has not brought a cross-application and having had one adjournment already – with directions enabling the parties to file further evidence – I have proceeded to finally determine the matter.
In terms of the Landlord’s compensation claims, I address these in turn: a. Kitchen doors and panels water damaged $2000.00 – the Landlord was asked to get an independent opinion on the cause of the damage. He obtained an opinion from a local kitchen company. He is a co-director of that company. I am not prepared to put any weight on the opinion, and I am unconvinced of the Landlord’s claim, given the Tenant’s plausible alternative explanation. b. Glass and window latch $515.00 – I find the Tenant’s claim of how the window broking credible and compelling. He explained, seamlessly, how the window latch was loose (there was a lose hinge on a door in the home also) and the lever came of the window latch notch before he could close the window. The door blew out and the lever smashed into the window, causing it to smash from the point of the lever knobs impact. Having seen the crack in the window the radius of the extended lever from the latch, the explanation makes sense to me and is more logical compared to the Landlord claim that the Tenant slammed the window, causing it to smash, for if it had been slammed shut, I would not have expected there to be a focused point of impact a quarter of the way up the pane, with webbing around it. c. Wall damaged sketching damage and door stopper broken $370.00 – the landlord presented no evidence of these areas prior to the commencement of the tenancy and the Tenant said there was never any stopper on the door, which means photographs are important. Pre-tenancy inspection checklists are unreliable for these areas.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the Tenant is liable for damage. Corrigendum
I have amended this Order, by agreement of the parties, to ensure this Order is consistent with the Tribunal Order of 14 January 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065648 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065648 — Rent arrears

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