What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268762 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 5268762?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12099625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268762 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 5268762?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12099625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268762 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Parties’ names and identifying details.
The application was withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for an adjournment and made a request to attend by telephone. Neither of those requests were granted. The hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30am. The tenant arrived at 10:30am.
The Tribunal delayed the start time to accommodate the tenant even though it is well established that once a hearing has been scheduled, the obligation is on the parties to attend at the correct time. Kawaya v Waikato Property Rentals [MA 100/02] 10 October 2002.
[The tenant/s] had applied for compensation regarding the condition of the property and an Order declaring that a notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory.
[The tenant/s] is one of three joint tenants. One of the other tenants is also a guarantor. The other two tenants have left the property. [The tenant/s] (and the other tenants) asked for the tenancy to be amended so that [The tenant/s] is the sole tenant. That request was not accepted by the landlord. So, the tenancy remains a periodic tenancy for which all three tenants are jointly and severally liable.
[The tenant/s] complained that the property manager should have explained the legal obligations of joint tenants and explained that the landlord and tenants all had to agree on any changes to the tenancy (including the parties). There is extensive email evidence of the property manager trying to explain those matters to the tenants. Further, the property manager was not involved at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has issued a 90-day, no cause, notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice expires on 14 August 2025. The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory. The property manager says that, while no explanation was required, the owner intends to carry out renovation work at the premises.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant’s evidence at the hearing was vague and non-specific. It was not clear what she was claiming or what relief she was seeking. During the hearing she advised that she was not seeking compensation but continued to refer to leaks and the condition of the property. She also wanted the termination notice to be extended.
[The tenant/s] maintained that she had not had enough time to prepare. I do not accept that submission. This is [The tenant/s]’s application. It was submitted on 20 May 2025. [The tenant/s] was advised of the 10 July hearing date on 12 June 2025.
After questions from the Tribunal, [The tenant/s], said she was looking for answers. I reiterated the role of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”
The landlord provided a timeline of its responses in relation alleged defects at the property and evidence in relation to the notice to terminate.
After I had heard from the landlord, the tenant advised that she is withdrawing her application. I checked that that was really her intention. She confirmed that it was.
As the application was withdrawn, I have suppressed both parties’ details.
Even though the application was withdrawn, I have set out the background in some detail in an attempt to explain the Tribunal’s role to [The tenant/s] and provide some guidance about what would have been required to establish a claim.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Parties’ names and identifying details.
The application was withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for an adjournment and made a request to attend by telephone. Neither of those requests were granted. The hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30am. The tenant arrived at 10:30am.
The Tribunal delayed the start time to accommodate the tenant even though it is well established that once a hearing has been scheduled, the obligation is on the parties to attend at the correct time. Kawaya v Waikato Property Rentals [MA 100/02] 10 October 2002.
[The tenant/s] had applied for compensation regarding the condition of the property and an Order declaring that a notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory.
[The tenant/s] is one of three joint tenants. One of the other tenants is also a guarantor. The other two tenants have left the property. [The tenant/s] (and the other tenants) asked for the tenancy to be amended so that [The tenant/s] is the sole tenant. That request was not accepted by the landlord. So, the tenancy remains a periodic tenancy for which all three tenants are jointly and severally liable.
[The tenant/s] complained that the property manager should have explained the legal obligations of joint tenants and explained that the landlord and tenants all had to agree on any changes to the tenancy (including the parties). There is extensive email evidence of the property manager trying to explain those matters to the tenants. Further, the property manager was not involved at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has issued a 90-day, no cause, notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice expires on 14 August 2025. The tenant claims that the notice was retaliatory. The property manager says that, while no explanation was required, the owner intends to carry out renovation work at the premises.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The tenant’s evidence at the hearing was vague and non-specific. It was not clear what she was claiming or what relief she was seeking. During the hearing she advised that she was not seeking compensation but continued to refer to leaks and the condition of the property. She also wanted the termination notice to be extended.
[The tenant/s] maintained that she had not had enough time to prepare. I do not accept that submission. This is [The tenant/s]’s application. It was submitted on 20 May 2025. [The tenant/s] was advised of the 10 July hearing date on 12 June 2025.
After questions from the Tribunal, [The tenant/s], said she was looking for answers. I reiterated the role of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”
The landlord provided a timeline of its responses in relation alleged defects at the property and evidence in relation to the notice to terminate.
After I had heard from the landlord, the tenant advised that she is withdrawing her application. I checked that that was really her intention. She confirmed that it was.
As the application was withdrawn, I have suppressed both parties’ details.
Even though the application was withdrawn, I have set out the background in some detail in an attempt to explain the Tribunal’s role to [The tenant/s] and provide some guidance about what would have been required to establish a claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268762 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268762 — Leaks

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