Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100612 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 8 Apr 2025 · Published 8 Apr 2025 · Application 5100612

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

S Young

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100612 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 8 Apr 2025 · Published 8 Apr 2025 · Application 5100612

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

S Young

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claimed that a washing machine was not working. The tenant asked the landlord to carry out repairs. The landlord refused to carry out the repairs. The tenant arranged for the repairs to the washing machine and paid for them. The tenant now seeks reimbursement for the repair cost and the cost for laundry services.
The tenancy agreement provides that this is an unfurnished tenancy. There had been some misunderstanding between the parties about the situation at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord thought that the premises were to be provided on a partially furnished basis. The tenant did not want the premises to be furnished.
The parties attended a mediation. The landlord was ordered to pay compensation to the tenant for the reduction in value of the premises caused as a result of the landlord storing some of their furnishings at the premises.
At no time has the tenant asked the landlord for permission to use the washing machine, which is now stored in the garage. The washing machine does not form part of the chattels in the tenancy agreement. There is accordingly no obligation whatsoever on the landlord to maintain the washing machine. The application by the tenant is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100612 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 5100612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100612?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11691834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claimed that a washing machine was not working. The tenant asked the landlord to carry out repairs. The landlord refused to carry out the repairs. The tenant arranged for the repairs to the washing machine and paid for them. The tenant now seeks reimbursement for the repair cost and the cost for laundry services.
The tenancy agreement provides that this is an unfurnished tenancy. There had been some misunderstanding between the parties about the situation at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord thought that the premises were to be provided on a partially furnished basis. The tenant did not want the premises to be furnished.
The parties attended a mediation. The landlord was ordered to pay compensation to the tenant for the reduction in value of the premises caused as a result of the landlord storing some of their furnishings at the premises.
At no time has the tenant asked the landlord for permission to use the washing machine, which is now stored in the garage. The washing machine does not form part of the chattels in the tenancy agreement. There is accordingly no obligation whatsoever on the landlord to maintain the washing machine. The application by the tenant is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100612 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 5100612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100612?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11691834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.