What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256945 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5256945?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256945?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256945?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115617-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256945 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5256945?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256945?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256945?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115617-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Pawa Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256945 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
The landlord sought compensation for a full internal repair and repaint ($5,750.00), as well as replacement of carpet ($1,150.00).
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.”
This tenancy has been the subject of a prior sealed mediated order for significant rent arrears. That is under enforcement action.
The application stated the tenancy commenced 5 August 2024. It ended on 9 March 2025.
During the hearing it became apparent the tenant had resided in the premises earlier. The landlord shared via the video function the original tenancy agreement from 2013. This was in the name of another person. That person is recorded as leaving the tenancy in August 2024, at the same time the tenant named here is recorded by two separate ticks as “staying” and “joining”. Her legal status prior is uncertain but there is no evidence she was a tenant prior.
A routine inspection report not long after the 5 August 2024 variation was signed shows the premises in a very distressed state. The damage is a combination of wear and tear, neglected maintenance, and tenant damage.
The issue with the application today, seeking compensation for significant vacated repair is twofold. Firstly, the named tenant is not evidenced as liable before August 2024. Secondly, the premises was already in poor condition at that time and an application to the Tribunal at that time against the previously named tenant(s) would have seemed appropriate.
In comparing the photos from August 2024 and the exit report in March 2025, I do not conclude there is any further damage, that might attract compensation, visible. There is a need for cleaning and rubbish removal and possible tenant liability, but these are not claims made in this application. I did consider accepting a request for variation for rubbish removal but the most evident “rubbish” shown is from the owner, or others, dumping the underlay, new carpet offcuts, old curtains and other items in an external storage area. No adequate evidence justified any such variation at the hearing.
Even if the need for repair was clearly linked to the tenant named in this application, the lapsed time since 2013, and little evidence of maintenance since then, would likely result in significant depreciation of any monetary orders.
Time, and a lack of accurate recording keeping over that long period, has hindered the landlord application.
As referenced earlier from the District Court decision in Kaipo: “...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.”
The application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
The landlord sought compensation for a full internal repair and repaint ($5,750.00), as well as replacement of carpet ($1,150.00).
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.”
This tenancy has been the subject of a prior sealed mediated order for significant rent arrears. That is under enforcement action.
The application stated the tenancy commenced 5 August 2024. It ended on 9 March 2025.
During the hearing it became apparent the tenant had resided in the premises earlier. The landlord shared via the video function the original tenancy agreement from 2013. This was in the name of another person. That person is recorded as leaving the tenancy in August 2024, at the same time the tenant named here is recorded by two separate ticks as “staying” and “joining”. Her legal status prior is uncertain but there is no evidence she was a tenant prior.
A routine inspection report not long after the 5 August 2024 variation was signed shows the premises in a very distressed state. The damage is a combination of wear and tear, neglected maintenance, and tenant damage.
The issue with the application today, seeking compensation for significant vacated repair is twofold. Firstly, the named tenant is not evidenced as liable before August 2024. Secondly, the premises was already in poor condition at that time and an application to the Tribunal at that time against the previously named tenant(s) would have seemed appropriate.
In comparing the photos from August 2024 and the exit report in March 2025, I do not conclude there is any further damage, that might attract compensation, visible. There is a need for cleaning and rubbish removal and possible tenant liability, but these are not claims made in this application. I did consider accepting a request for variation for rubbish removal but the most evident “rubbish” shown is from the owner, or others, dumping the underlay, new carpet offcuts, old curtains and other items in an external storage area. No adequate evidence justified any such variation at the hearing.
Even if the need for repair was clearly linked to the tenant named in this application, the lapsed time since 2013, and little evidence of maintenance since then, would likely result in significant depreciation of any monetary orders.
Time, and a lack of accurate recording keeping over that long period, has hindered the landlord application.
As referenced earlier from the District Court decision in Kaipo: “...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.”
The application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256945 — Rent arrears at 11 Pawa Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256945 — Rent arrears at 11 Pawa Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions