What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267112 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5267112?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12225947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267112 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5267112?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12225947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 204, 25 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630, The Pines Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267112 — Leaks

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Lisa Goodrick attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent, Udy.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlords claim the tenant is liable for damage that occurred during the tenancy. In its application for the landlords, Udy said: Please note: We are acting on behalf of the previous property manager who has since left the company. Property sold - Owner has had to pay $5000 to resolve the flooding issue to the purchasers satisfaction. He let us know early April that he wanted us to claim the bond and we have tried since that date to contact the tenant to try and resolve this without involving tenancy tribunal. As per two attachments emails that have been sent have been opened but not replied to.
The tenancy began on 4 July 2018 and ended on 28 November 2024 – so lasted more than six years.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords sold the premises after. According to Ms Goodrick, the new owner required the landlords to pay for damage to the master bedroom’s wall, a wardrobe, and carpet due to water ingress. The landlords in turn want the tenant to pay them $1,976.00 towards that loss.
Ms Goodrick says that the tenant’s son told her that the damage occurred in late January 2023 during the Anniversary Day weather bomb. She says the tenant failed to report the water ingress in a timely way. However, the tenant says she was not aware of the water ingress until about a year later when she moved some boxes in the wardrobe. She asked her son to report the leak to Ms Goodrick, which he did at the next property inspection in about February 2024.
The water ingress having been reported in early 2024, the landlords had every opportunity to investigate and repair the problem well before the tenancy ended and they sold the premises.
Udy did not call the landlord’s son to give evidence, so what Ms Goodrick says he says is hearsay. I attribute minimal weight to this hearsay evidence.
There is a lack of evidence to prove that the damage occurred as the result of a one-off event. The (undated) photographs show the wardrobe carpet is stained. They do not show widespread carpet damage outside the wardrobe. It is equally likely that the damage was caused gradually by an undetected ongoing leak.
The claim was brought more than six months after the tenancy ended. Udy did not submit entry, routine, or exit photographs to prove the damage was not pre-existing.
Presumably, at the end of the tenancy the property manager did not consider the tenant had breached her move-out duties or any other duties. This claim was brought after the “owner let us know early April he wanted us to claim the bond”.
There is a dearth of evidence that the tenant was at fault. The landlords’ detailed narrative is not supported by contemporaneous evidence from 2023, expert evidence from contractors, nor any cogent evidence to support the narrative.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached any of her tenant obligations or that she is liable for any damage to the premises.
The claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 1
The tenant has wholly succeeded in defending the proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal therefore orders non-publication as sought.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Lisa Goodrick attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent, Udy.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlords claim the tenant is liable for damage that occurred during the tenancy. In its application for the landlords, Udy said: Please note: We are acting on behalf of the previous property manager who has since left the company. Property sold - Owner has had to pay $5000 to resolve the flooding issue to the purchasers satisfaction. He let us know early April that he wanted us to claim the bond and we have tried since that date to contact the tenant to try and resolve this without involving tenancy tribunal. As per two attachments emails that have been sent have been opened but not replied to.
The tenancy began on 4 July 2018 and ended on 28 November 2024 – so lasted more than six years.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords sold the premises after. According to Ms Goodrick, the new owner required the landlords to pay for damage to the master bedroom’s wall, a wardrobe, and carpet due to water ingress. The landlords in turn want the tenant to pay them $1,976.00 towards that loss.
Ms Goodrick says that the tenant’s son told her that the damage occurred in late January 2023 during the Anniversary Day weather bomb. She says the tenant failed to report the water ingress in a timely way. However, the tenant says she was not aware of the water ingress until about a year later when she moved some boxes in the wardrobe. She asked her son to report the leak to Ms Goodrick, which he did at the next property inspection in about February 2024.
The water ingress having been reported in early 2024, the landlords had every opportunity to investigate and repair the problem well before the tenancy ended and they sold the premises.
Udy did not call the landlord’s son to give evidence, so what Ms Goodrick says he says is hearsay. I attribute minimal weight to this hearsay evidence.
There is a lack of evidence to prove that the damage occurred as the result of a one-off event. The (undated) photographs show the wardrobe carpet is stained. They do not show widespread carpet damage outside the wardrobe. It is equally likely that the damage was caused gradually by an undetected ongoing leak.
The claim was brought more than six months after the tenancy ended. Udy did not submit entry, routine, or exit photographs to prove the damage was not pre-existing.
Presumably, at the end of the tenancy the property manager did not consider the tenant had breached her move-out duties or any other duties. This claim was brought after the “owner let us know early April he wanted us to claim the bond”.
There is a dearth of evidence that the tenant was at fault. The landlords’ detailed narrative is not supported by contemporaneous evidence from 2023, expert evidence from contractors, nor any cogent evidence to support the narrative.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached any of her tenant obligations or that she is liable for any damage to the premises.
The claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 1
The tenant has wholly succeeded in defending the proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal therefore orders non-publication as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267112 — Leaks at Unit 204, 25 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630, The Pines

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267112 — Leaks at Unit 204, 25 Bute Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630, The Pines

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