What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282729 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969156-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282729 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969156-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282729 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations s45 (1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
S45 (1) (e) RTA provides that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. Several police acknowledgement notices relating to theft of her scooter and clothing, alleged assault on her by another person staying in the complex, damage to her car.
The tenant provided letters confirming meetings between the landlord and tenant to address her concerns and setting out the steps undertaken to try to remedy concerns. Invoices relating to replacing tyres on her car and windscreen repairs, a carpark request form, and various other incidental documents.
The landlord provided submissions and documentation which acknowledge the complaints from the tenant over the tenancy, confirmation of multiple meetings arranged and held to discuss the complaints with the tenant. The meetings were held with the landlord’s Senior Housing Support Manager and the Housing Support Manager, the tenant, and her support workers.
The landlord advised that on each occasion when a complaint is made to the police about a theft, burglary or assault, (such as made by the tenant to the police), the police seek CCTV footage from the security company that has the contract to provide security at the complex. The landlord does not have direct access to the CCTV footage. The police reports provided confirm that on all but one occasion there was not enough evidence to take the tenants complaints further.
The one occasion where there was police and court action, the offender was the tenant’s son who damaged her property.
The landlord has security patrols that go to the property at night and CCTV cameras around the premises. In addition to these security measures and as a direct result of the tenants’ complaints to the landlord and police, the landlord has installed extra security measures such as a chain on her front door, a lock on her bedroom door and repaired damage to the property.
The landlord states that the tenant has been unable to provide specific additional information about incidents at the complex, which has made it hard for them to take further steps to assist the tenant.
The landlord states that they do not accept that they have breached the RTA and have taken all reasonable steps to respond to the tenants’ concerns and address them where possible.
The tenant seeks monetary compensation for stress and for the work she has had to pay for damage to her car. The tenant has not quantified the amount of compensation she is claiming for repairs to her car. She provided unrelated invoices and was vague as to what she was actually claiming.
I have absolutely no doubt that the tenant has suffered loss by the actions of unknown people at the complex. The financial loss and harm caused would have a profound effect on the tenant and being very stressful.
The tenant provided the car park request form in her evidence. The form clearly states that the landlord is not liable for damage caused to residents’ car that are parked in the car park. Relevant law:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded. Proof:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with all relevant building, health, and safety requirements (see section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA).
In this case, the tenant alleges that the landlord has not met this obligation. However, the onus is on the tenant to provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe home.
After considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe home. The claim is therefore dismissed.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or clarity to prove her claim. The Tribunal can only make an order where the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim is justified. In this case, the evidence presented was insufficient and unclear, and therefore the claim is not proven.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations s45 (1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
S45 (1) (e) RTA provides that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. Several police acknowledgement notices relating to theft of her scooter and clothing, alleged assault on her by another person staying in the complex, damage to her car.
The tenant provided letters confirming meetings between the landlord and tenant to address her concerns and setting out the steps undertaken to try to remedy concerns. Invoices relating to replacing tyres on her car and windscreen repairs, a carpark request form, and various other incidental documents.
The landlord provided submissions and documentation which acknowledge the complaints from the tenant over the tenancy, confirmation of multiple meetings arranged and held to discuss the complaints with the tenant. The meetings were held with the landlord’s Senior Housing Support Manager and the Housing Support Manager, the tenant, and her support workers.
The landlord advised that on each occasion when a complaint is made to the police about a theft, burglary or assault, (such as made by the tenant to the police), the police seek CCTV footage from the security company that has the contract to provide security at the complex. The landlord does not have direct access to the CCTV footage. The police reports provided confirm that on all but one occasion there was not enough evidence to take the tenants complaints further.
The one occasion where there was police and court action, the offender was the tenant’s son who damaged her property.
The landlord has security patrols that go to the property at night and CCTV cameras around the premises. In addition to these security measures and as a direct result of the tenants’ complaints to the landlord and police, the landlord has installed extra security measures such as a chain on her front door, a lock on her bedroom door and repaired damage to the property.
The landlord states that the tenant has been unable to provide specific additional information about incidents at the complex, which has made it hard for them to take further steps to assist the tenant.
The landlord states that they do not accept that they have breached the RTA and have taken all reasonable steps to respond to the tenants’ concerns and address them where possible.
The tenant seeks monetary compensation for stress and for the work she has had to pay for damage to her car. The tenant has not quantified the amount of compensation she is claiming for repairs to her car. She provided unrelated invoices and was vague as to what she was actually claiming.
I have absolutely no doubt that the tenant has suffered loss by the actions of unknown people at the complex. The financial loss and harm caused would have a profound effect on the tenant and being very stressful.
The tenant provided the car park request form in her evidence. The form clearly states that the landlord is not liable for damage caused to residents’ car that are parked in the car park. Relevant law:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded. Proof:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with all relevant building, health, and safety requirements (see section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA).
In this case, the tenant alleges that the landlord has not met this obligation. However, the onus is on the tenant to provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe home.
After considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe home. The claim is therefore dismissed.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or clarity to prove her claim. The Tribunal can only make an order where the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim is justified. In this case, the evidence presented was insufficient and unclear, and therefore the claim is not proven.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282729 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282729 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions