What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118113 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 5118113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118113?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13465773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118113 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 5118113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118113?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13465773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

80c Aotaki street, Otaki 5512, House behind all safe Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118113 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Victor Davis must pay [The tenant/s] $8,000.00 immediately, being compensation for the belongings seized by the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant appealed my order that the landlord pay $2,000 as compensation for loss of his belongings and stress. The appeal was successful. Judge Harrop quashed my order for $2,000 and ordered that I have a rehearing to consider the issue again. The matter was set down for a rehearing.
In addition to the evidence I had at the original hearing I saw 9 videos and eight photos. These were all evidence allowed to be considered after the appeal.
In particular, one video shows the tenant trying to collect his belongings from the storage unit he had been living in. He had a hire trailer. The landlord would not allow the tenant or his partner to enter the unit. The video shows the partner asking over and over for all the belongings to be moved outside so they could collect them over the next 24 hours. The landlord can be seen moving small items outside and sweeping the floor instead of moving the furniture, appliances, clothing, and boxes as requested. About 5 minutes into the video the landlord closed the door, locked it and left. Having seen the videos I have no doubt the belongings were seized by the landlord.
The landlord then stored the belongings in the unit for about three months. About one month before the original hearing the landlord put all the remaining belongings and rubbish on eight pallets, wrapped them in plastic, and put them in a neighbouring yard. When we had the first hearing the pallets were discussed and the tenant said he did not want the pallets because he had no idea what condition the belongings would be in. At that point the landlord disposed of everything that was on the pallets.
At the hearing today the landlord said he should not have to pay compensation for the belongings because the tenant had the opportunity to collect the pallets. However, I find the tenant’s concerns about condition to be reasonable and I do not find that the tenant failed to mitigate by not collecting the pallets.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not set out a process for the return of belongings which have been seized. As a comparison, when a tenant leaves belongings at the end of a tenancy the RTA requires that the landlord contact the tenant and agree on a period for the tenant to collect the goods. If that does not happen the landlord must securely store any goods of value for not less than 35 days. This law is set out in section 62 – 62C RTA and demonstrates how tenants are given every opportunity to get any belongings they have left behind.
Here the landlord locked the belongings in the storage unit. He turned the tenant’s security camera around so the tenant could not see what he was doing. He agreed with the police that the tenant could collect his belongings the next day, so long as the tenant and his partner did not enter the unit. On the day the landlord did not hand over the belongings. When I asked the landlord why he acted this way he said he thought the tenant was only going to take the good stuff and leave the landlord with the rubbish to clean up.
The tenant provided a list of items that he lost as a result of the landlord’s actions. I have considered the videos, the photos and heard from the landlord. It seems most likely to me the landlord seized and did not return: • A 65” TV • 2 older TVs • Computer monitors • A ride on toy • PC components • 2 gaming keyboards and a mouse • A three D printer • A chromebook and an old laptop and a child’s laptop • A smart charger and shaver • A brand new gazebo • Clothes and socks • Hunting clothing, hunting gear including traps, and a water bottle • Work gear and tools • A fizzy water machine and gas bottles • A car battery charger and jump start pack • Security camera and SD card • A kids scooter • A remote controlled car and battery • Fridge freezer • Chest freezer • Air fryer, sandwich press, and the contents of the kitchen • Washing machine • An E Trike missing the battery • Beds and bedding • Tables and desks and shelving and dressers • BBQ • Photo albums • Ornaments and small statues • Trophies and football memorabilia • Couch and chairs • A keyboard • Gifts and children’s art and irreplaceable items of sentimental value.
The belongings were of various ages and condition. The tenant had receipts for some and I accept that many items were household goods that a family accumulates over time. The tenant agreed it was hard to place a value on some of the items, especially the older appliances that still cost money to replace. Taking all this into account I find $8,000 to be fair compensation.
The order for suppression continues for the tenant.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Victor Davis must pay [The tenant/s] $8,000.00 immediately, being compensation for the belongings seized by the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant appealed my order that the landlord pay $2,000 as compensation for loss of his belongings and stress. The appeal was successful. Judge Harrop quashed my order for $2,000 and ordered that I have a rehearing to consider the issue again. The matter was set down for a rehearing.
In addition to the evidence I had at the original hearing I saw 9 videos and eight photos. These were all evidence allowed to be considered after the appeal.
In particular, one video shows the tenant trying to collect his belongings from the storage unit he had been living in. He had a hire trailer. The landlord would not allow the tenant or his partner to enter the unit. The video shows the partner asking over and over for all the belongings to be moved outside so they could collect them over the next 24 hours. The landlord can be seen moving small items outside and sweeping the floor instead of moving the furniture, appliances, clothing, and boxes as requested. About 5 minutes into the video the landlord closed the door, locked it and left. Having seen the videos I have no doubt the belongings were seized by the landlord.
The landlord then stored the belongings in the unit for about three months. About one month before the original hearing the landlord put all the remaining belongings and rubbish on eight pallets, wrapped them in plastic, and put them in a neighbouring yard. When we had the first hearing the pallets were discussed and the tenant said he did not want the pallets because he had no idea what condition the belongings would be in. At that point the landlord disposed of everything that was on the pallets.
At the hearing today the landlord said he should not have to pay compensation for the belongings because the tenant had the opportunity to collect the pallets. However, I find the tenant’s concerns about condition to be reasonable and I do not find that the tenant failed to mitigate by not collecting the pallets.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not set out a process for the return of belongings which have been seized. As a comparison, when a tenant leaves belongings at the end of a tenancy the RTA requires that the landlord contact the tenant and agree on a period for the tenant to collect the goods. If that does not happen the landlord must securely store any goods of value for not less than 35 days. This law is set out in section 62 – 62C RTA and demonstrates how tenants are given every opportunity to get any belongings they have left behind.
Here the landlord locked the belongings in the storage unit. He turned the tenant’s security camera around so the tenant could not see what he was doing. He agreed with the police that the tenant could collect his belongings the next day, so long as the tenant and his partner did not enter the unit. On the day the landlord did not hand over the belongings. When I asked the landlord why he acted this way he said he thought the tenant was only going to take the good stuff and leave the landlord with the rubbish to clean up.
The tenant provided a list of items that he lost as a result of the landlord’s actions. I have considered the videos, the photos and heard from the landlord. It seems most likely to me the landlord seized and did not return: • A 65” TV • 2 older TVs • Computer monitors • A ride on toy • PC components • 2 gaming keyboards and a mouse • A three D printer • A chromebook and an old laptop and a child’s laptop • A smart charger and shaver • A brand new gazebo • Clothes and socks • Hunting clothing, hunting gear including traps, and a water bottle • Work gear and tools • A fizzy water machine and gas bottles • A car battery charger and jump start pack • Security camera and SD card • A kids scooter • A remote controlled car and battery • Fridge freezer • Chest freezer • Air fryer, sandwich press, and the contents of the kitchen • Washing machine • An E Trike missing the battery • Beds and bedding • Tables and desks and shelving and dressers • BBQ • Photo albums • Ornaments and small statues • Trophies and football memorabilia • Couch and chairs • A keyboard • Gifts and children’s art and irreplaceable items of sentimental value.
The belongings were of various ages and condition. The tenant had receipts for some and I accept that many items were household goods that a family accumulates over time. The tenant agreed it was hard to place a value on some of the items, especially the older appliances that still cost money to replace. Taking all this into account I find $8,000 to be fair compensation.
The order for suppression continues for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118113 — Tenancy dispute at 80c Aotaki street, Otaki 5512, House behind all safe

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118113 — Tenancy dispute at 80c Aotaki street, Otaki 5512, House behind all safe

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions