What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248373 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 5248373?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248373?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11906054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248373 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 5248373?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248373?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11906054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 8, 9 Straven Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248373 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises occupied by the tenant.

While the landlord has given the tenant notice terminating the tenancy and the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice, I am not satisfied that the grounds for the notice were reasonable or valid.

The evidence suggests that the tenant’s evidence that he entered his neighbour’s room and threw water at his laptop because he mistook the reflection from a glitter lamp, for a fire is accepted.

Having heard affirmed evidence from the neighbouring occupant I am quite satisfied that the alternative explanation that the tenant’s actions were vindictive is not correct. The neighbouring tenant said he had never had any disagreement with the tenant who was quiet and kept to himself is important in this regard.

As is his evidence that he left his door wide open on the evening in question, that he was gone for a couple of hours and that he had left the glitter lamp on when he left.

The evidence fits entirely with the tenant’s explanation for his actions that night. That he acted in haste when he thought he saw a fire and quickly got his water bottle to put it out.

While the landlord’s actions in issuing the notice were reasonable, considering the security footage, which clearly show the tenant quite deliberately entering the neighbouring room and then leaving seconds later putting the lid back on his water bottle, the tenant’s equally reasonable explanation (accepted by his neighbouring occupant) are also entirely plausible.

In the circumstances the notice was not properly given, in terms of s66Y and it would not be a fair outcome to enforce it as requested.

Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to resolve disputes in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of a case and to issue the possession order would not be to do that.

The Tribunal orders name suppression for both parties. The public interest does not require either name is published.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises occupied by the tenant.

The evidence suggests that the tenant’s evidence that he entered his neighbour’s room and threw water at his laptop because he mistook the reflection from a glitter lamp, for a fire is accepted.

As is his evidence that he left his door wide open on the evening in question, that he was gone for a couple of hours and that he had left the glitter lamp on when he left.

The evidence fits entirely with the tenant’s explanation for his actions that night. That he acted in haste when he thought he saw a fire and quickly got his water bottle to put it out.

In the circumstances the notice was not properly given, in terms of s66Y and it would not be a fair outcome to enforce it as requested.

Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to resolve disputes in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of a case and to issue the possession order would not be to do that.

The Tribunal orders name suppression for both parties. The public interest does not require either name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248373 — Tenancy dispute at Room 8, 9 Straven Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248373 — Tenancy dispute at Room 8, 9 Straven Road, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

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