What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277020 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5277020?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12087738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277020 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5277020?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12087738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

203 Makino Road, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277020 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for reduction of their fixed term tenancy and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property.
The parties had agreed to an end date for the tenancy prior to the hearing and so it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider this part of the tenant’s application.
The tenant confirmed that they wanted the Tribunal to consider their claim for damage to one of their cars which they claimed was caused by an inadequacy in the driveway to the property. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction
In considering the tenant’s claim, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.”
While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
Section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. The parties’ evidence
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The concreted driveway to the property has a dip of some 140 mm a short distance from the lip at its start. b. The tenant’s car scraped over the lip and hit the concrete of the driveway cracking the front tray and scraping its rails. c. Two quotations from panel beaters for repairs were supplied for $2,442.47 and $2,771.50. d. The landlord was notified of the issue by telephone from the start of the tenancy, but the landlord did not repair the driveway. e. Because the tenants could not safely bring their cars onto the property, they decided to move from the property.
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. The driveway was in this condition at the start of the tenancy. b. The first notification she had of it causing damage was when the tenant advised that her son’s lowered car had been damaged. c. She instructed a handyman to inspect the driveway and he quoted to grind the nib down. This work was completed prior to the end of the tenancy. d. None of the landlord’s contractors or anyone else has complained of the driveway being an issue or causing damage. Consideration and decision
There is no evidence that the driveway deteriorated during the tenancy. The photographic evidence of the landlord confirmed that the driveway was in this condition at the start of the tenancy.
As noted during the hearing, the landlord is under no obligation to improve any aspect of the property, only to maintain it and comply with the legal requirements.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord has failed to maintain the property. The tenant rented it with the driveway in this condition and, in the absence of a legal requirement such as may be found in the Building Act 2004 or local body bylaws, the landlord is under no legal obligation to improve it because the tenant has requested it. A landlord may choose to do so in order to improve the property and to retain good tenants, but there is no legal obligation on the landlord to do so.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant’s application was for reduction of their fixed term tenancy and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property.

The parties had agreed to an end date for the tenancy prior to the hearing and so it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider this part of the tenant’s application.

The tenant confirmed that they wanted the Tribunal to consider their claim for damage to one of their cars which they claimed was caused by an inadequacy in the driveway to the property. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction

In considering the tenant’s claim, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.”

While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

Section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. The parties’ evidence

The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The concreted driveway to the property has a dip of some 140 mm a short distance from the lip at its start. b. The tenant’s car scraped over the lip and hit the concrete of the driveway cracking the front tray and scraping its rails. c. Two quotations from panel beaters for repairs were supplied for $2,442.47 and $2,771.50. d. The landlord was notified of the issue by telephone from the start of the tenancy, but the landlord did not repair the driveway. e. Because the tenants could not safely bring their cars onto the property, they decided to move from the property.

The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. The driveway was in this condition at the start of the tenancy. b. The first notification she had of it causing damage was when the tenant advised that her son’s lowered car had been damaged. c. She instructed a handyman to inspect the driveway and he quoted to grind the nib down. This work was completed prior to the end of the tenancy. d. None of the landlord’s contractors or anyone else has complained of the driveway being an issue or causing damage. Consideration and decision

There is no evidence that the driveway deteriorated during the tenancy. The photographic evidence of the landlord confirmed that the driveway was in this condition at the start of the tenancy.

As noted during the hearing, the landlord is under no obligation to improve any aspect of the property, only to maintain it and comply with the legal requirements.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord has failed to maintain the property. The tenant rented it with the driveway in this condition and, in the absence of a legal requirement such as may be found in the Building Act 2004 or local body bylaws, the landlord is under no legal obligation to improve it because the tenant has requested it. A landlord may choose to do so in order to improve the property and to retain good tenants, but there is no legal obligation on the landlord to do so.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277020 — Tenancy dispute at 203 Makino Road, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277020 — Tenancy dispute at 203 Makino Road, Feilding, Feilding 4702

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