What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290059 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 5290059?

Premises By The Tenants At The End O…: $61.43 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12765752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290059 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 5290059?

Premises By The Tenants At The End O…: $61.43 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12765752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

69A Yule Street, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290059 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290059. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants. 3. The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent	$61.43		premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants. 3. The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent
Bond		$1,600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the refrigerator removed from the premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants.
The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent of $61.43 which is to be paid to the landlord immediately by deduction from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: HASH PATEL and Bhavic Patel: $61.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,538.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
This tenancy started on 28 November 2022 and ended on 17 February 2025.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond less one-days’ rent that they say is owed to the landlord. Both parties agree that one days’ rent is owed.
The landlord has a further claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim, otherwise the bond should be refunded in full to the tenants. However, I am satisfied that the tenants are fully aware of the landlord’s claim against the bond and they have applied to the Tribunal for the issue to be determined. Therefore, the Tribunal will determine the landlord’s claim.
I note that the onus is on the landlord to prove his claim that the fridge belonged to him and that he should be compensated $500 for it. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, receipts and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Claim for the refrigerator
The landlord claims that the tenants removed the fridge from the premises at the end of the tenancy which belonged to the landlord. He seeks $500 from the bond for the replacement costs. On 18 April 2025, the landlord signed a bond refund form to that effect and asked the tenants to co-sign the form. The tenants say they purchased the fridge from the outgoing tenant (the vendor tenant”) and it was not recorded as a chattel provided by the landlord in their tenancy agreement. Landlord case
The landlord says that he has always supplied a fridge for tenancies at this property. He provided a copy of a property inspection report including a chattels list for a much earlier tenancy which was in place in 2017 (“the 2017 agreement”). This is not the tenancy of the later vendor tenant from whom the tenants purchased the chattels. No chattels are listed in the chattels section of the 2017 agreement. However, on the itemised list of rooms and items the word refrigerator is pre-printed, and both the landlord and tenant columns are ticked to show that the fridge is in acceptable condition. Similarly, where the word washing machine is pre-printed, both the landlord and tenant columns are ticked to show that the washing machine is in acceptable condition Therefore, the landlord says that this supports his claim that he provided both a fridge and a washing machine for tenancies at the premises.
The landlord says that the fridge he provided in 2017 leaked and he replaced it with a new Samsung fridge purchased from the Warehouse for approximately $800. He cannot recall the purchase date of the fridge, simply saying it was sometime after 2017. The landlord says that he provided a copy of the purchase receipt to his accountant so that it could be recorded in his business accounts and depreciation claimed. However, a legible copy of the receipt is no longer available.
The landlord provided a letter from his accountant which says: “We are the accountants for Bhavica Trisha Holding Limited, hereby confirm that we have added the refrigerator under 69 Yule Street, Kilbirnie 6022 in the company account since year ended 2023 and claiming the depreciation on the same.”
I note that the landlord named in the tenancy agreement is Hash and Bhavic Patel, not Bhavica Trisha Holding Ltd. Also the premises are described in the tenancy agreement as 69A Yule St, not 69 Yule Street as mentioned in the accountant’s letter. This could be a simple error. More importantly, the accountant’s letter does not establish that a fridge has been recorded in the accounts prior to the year ending 2023, and there is no explanation as to why not, given the landlord’s claim that they have always provided a fridge for the premises since 2017.
In the meantime, the landlord says that he has replaced the fridge at a cost of $850 and is not seeking its return from the tenants. He was unable to provide a receipt for the new fridge. Tenant case
The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants on 7 November 2022 and by the landlords on 8 November 2022. The agreement does not contain a property inspection report nor a chattels list.
The tenants purchased the fridge directly from the outgoing vendor tenant as agreed when they were viewing the property. The vendor tenant informed them that he was going overseas and wished to sell his furniture which included the fridge, a TV, TV stand, couch, 2 beds, dresser, and kitchen utensils for a price of $5,500. The vendor tenant also told them that the landlord supplied the washing machine and the oven.
There is no list, email, or written agreement to record exactly what the tenants purchased from the vendor tenant. They provided their bank records to show that they paid for the chattels in three instalments with 2 payments of $2,000 on 4 and 31 January 2023 and a payment of $1,500 on 14 February 2023. These payments for the chattels were made well after the tenancy agreement was signed which did not identify any chattels supplied by the landlord.
The tenants contacted the vendor tenant recently for more information about the fridge. He simply stated that it belonged to him. He claimed that when he moved into the premises, the landlord’s fridge was faulty and needed to be replaced. As he had his own fridge, there was no need for the landlord to supply one. Unfortunately, there is no written statement from the previous tenant confirming this evidence.
The tenants were able to check the model of the fridge with the Samsung manufacturer and have been told it dates from 2018.
When the landlord claimed the fridge was his, to avoid conflict, the tenants agreed to let the landlord keep back $500 from the bond. However, after seeking advice from Tenancy Services, they emailed the landlord on 2 May 2025 offering to return the fridge if he could provide valid proof of purchase. The landlord responded with the 2017 agreement and the letter from his accountants, referred to above. The tenants believe neither of those documents are sufficient to establish the identity (make, model & serial number) and ownership of the fridge. They note that the 2017 agreement was not with the vendor tenant they purchased the chattels from, but a much earlier tenant. The landlord did not provide a copy of the vendor tenant’s tenancy agreement to show that the fridge was recorded as a chattel. Therefore, the tenants believe that the fridge belonged to the vendor tenant and it now lawfully belongs to them.
Even if the landlord was able to prove he owned the fridge, the tenants say that they would not pay $500 for it and would prefer to return it to the landlord. Discussion and findings
After carefully considering all the evidence, I find that the landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the fridge in question belonged to him. He confirmed that the fridge mentioned in the 2017 agreement was replaced but he could not recall exactly when. He did not produce any evidence to establish that he purchased this fridge and supplied the fridge to the tenant immediately preceding these tenants. No legible purchase receipt is available. A copy of the tenancy agreement for the vendor was also not provided, presumably because it does not record that the fridge was supplied as a chattel for that tenancy.
The tenancy agreement in this case was prepared by the landlord and is the document which records all the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreed by the parties. The landlord has not filled out the chattels list in the agreement and, therefore, in the absence of other evidence confirming ownership, the landlord has not proved that the fridge belonged to him.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation for the fridge must be dismissed.
As an aside, I comment that even had I found in favour of the landlord, he would not be entitled to $500 for the fridge. The fridge could either be returned to him or I could award a fair value for the fridge which must take depreciation into account. If the fridge was purchased in 2018, which is likely the case, then it is about 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a fridge in a rental property is 8 years. Therefore, the fridge would almost be fully depreciated.
As the tenants have largely succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested. As some rent was owed to be settled from the bond, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290059. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants. 3. The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent	$61.43		premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants. 3. The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent
Bond		$1,600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the refrigerator removed from the premises by the tenants at the end of the tenancy belongs to the tenants.
The tenants owe the landlord one days’ rent of $61.43 which is to be paid to the landlord immediately by deduction from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: HASH PATEL and Bhavic Patel: $61.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,538.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
This tenancy started on 28 November 2022 and ended on 17 February 2025.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond less one-days’ rent that they say is owed to the landlord. Both parties agree that one days’ rent is owed.
The landlord has a further claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim, otherwise the bond should be refunded in full to the tenants. However, I am satisfied that the tenants are fully aware of the landlord’s claim against the bond and they have applied to the Tribunal for the issue to be determined. Therefore, the Tribunal will determine the landlord’s claim.
I note that the onus is on the landlord to prove his claim that the fridge belonged to him and that he should be compensated $500 for it. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, receipts and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Claim for the refrigerator
The landlord claims that the tenants removed the fridge from the premises at the end of the tenancy which belonged to the landlord. He seeks $500 from the bond for the replacement costs. On 18 April 2025, the landlord signed a bond refund form to that effect and asked the tenants to co-sign the form. The tenants say they purchased the fridge from the outgoing tenant (the vendor tenant”) and it was not recorded as a chattel provided by the landlord in their tenancy agreement. Landlord case
The landlord says that he has always supplied a fridge for tenancies at this property. He provided a copy of a property inspection report including a chattels list for a much earlier tenancy which was in place in 2017 (“the 2017 agreement”). This is not the tenancy of the later vendor tenant from whom the tenants purchased the chattels. No chattels are listed in the chattels section of the 2017 agreement. However, on the itemised list of rooms and items the word refrigerator is pre-printed, and both the landlord and tenant columns are ticked to show that the fridge is in acceptable condition. Similarly, where the word washing machine is pre-printed, both the landlord and tenant columns are ticked to show that the washing machine is in acceptable condition Therefore, the landlord says that this supports his claim that he provided both a fridge and a washing machine for tenancies at the premises.
The landlord says that the fridge he provided in 2017 leaked and he replaced it with a new Samsung fridge purchased from the Warehouse for approximately $800. He cannot recall the purchase date of the fridge, simply saying it was sometime after 2017. The landlord says that he provided a copy of the purchase receipt to his accountant so that it could be recorded in his business accounts and depreciation claimed. However, a legible copy of the receipt is no longer available.
The landlord provided a letter from his accountant which says: “We are the accountants for Bhavica Trisha Holding Limited, hereby confirm that we have added the refrigerator under 69 Yule Street, Kilbirnie 6022 in the company account since year ended 2023 and claiming the depreciation on the same.”
I note that the landlord named in the tenancy agreement is Hash and Bhavic Patel, not Bhavica Trisha Holding Ltd. Also the premises are described in the tenancy agreement as 69A Yule St, not 69 Yule Street as mentioned in the accountant’s letter. This could be a simple error. More importantly, the accountant’s letter does not establish that a fridge has been recorded in the accounts prior to the year ending 2023, and there is no explanation as to why not, given the landlord’s claim that they have always provided a fridge for the premises since 2017.
In the meantime, the landlord says that he has replaced the fridge at a cost of $850 and is not seeking its return from the tenants. He was unable to provide a receipt for the new fridge. Tenant case
The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants on 7 November 2022 and by the landlords on 8 November 2022. The agreement does not contain a property inspection report nor a chattels list.
The tenants purchased the fridge directly from the outgoing vendor tenant as agreed when they were viewing the property. The vendor tenant informed them that he was going overseas and wished to sell his furniture which included the fridge, a TV, TV stand, couch, 2 beds, dresser, and kitchen utensils for a price of $5,500. The vendor tenant also told them that the landlord supplied the washing machine and the oven.
There is no list, email, or written agreement to record exactly what the tenants purchased from the vendor tenant. They provided their bank records to show that they paid for the chattels in three instalments with 2 payments of $2,000 on 4 and 31 January 2023 and a payment of $1,500 on 14 February 2023. These payments for the chattels were made well after the tenancy agreement was signed which did not identify any chattels supplied by the landlord.
The tenants contacted the vendor tenant recently for more information about the fridge. He simply stated that it belonged to him. He claimed that when he moved into the premises, the landlord’s fridge was faulty and needed to be replaced. As he had his own fridge, there was no need for the landlord to supply one. Unfortunately, there is no written statement from the previous tenant confirming this evidence.
The tenants were able to check the model of the fridge with the Samsung manufacturer and have been told it dates from 2018.
When the landlord claimed the fridge was his, to avoid conflict, the tenants agreed to let the landlord keep back $500 from the bond. However, after seeking advice from Tenancy Services, they emailed the landlord on 2 May 2025 offering to return the fridge if he could provide valid proof of purchase. The landlord responded with the 2017 agreement and the letter from his accountants, referred to above. The tenants believe neither of those documents are sufficient to establish the identity (make, model & serial number) and ownership of the fridge. They note that the 2017 agreement was not with the vendor tenant they purchased the chattels from, but a much earlier tenant. The landlord did not provide a copy of the vendor tenant’s tenancy agreement to show that the fridge was recorded as a chattel. Therefore, the tenants believe that the fridge belonged to the vendor tenant and it now lawfully belongs to them.
Even if the landlord was able to prove he owned the fridge, the tenants say that they would not pay $500 for it and would prefer to return it to the landlord. Discussion and findings
After carefully considering all the evidence, I find that the landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the fridge in question belonged to him. He confirmed that the fridge mentioned in the 2017 agreement was replaced but he could not recall exactly when. He did not produce any evidence to establish that he purchased this fridge and supplied the fridge to the tenant immediately preceding these tenants. No legible purchase receipt is available. A copy of the tenancy agreement for the vendor was also not provided, presumably because it does not record that the fridge was supplied as a chattel for that tenancy.
The tenancy agreement in this case was prepared by the landlord and is the document which records all the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreed by the parties. The landlord has not filled out the chattels list in the agreement and, therefore, in the absence of other evidence confirming ownership, the landlord has not proved that the fridge belonged to him.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation for the fridge must be dismissed.
As an aside, I comment that even had I found in favour of the landlord, he would not be entitled to $500 for the fridge. The fridge could either be returned to him or I could award a fair value for the fridge which must take depreciation into account. If the fridge was purchased in 2018, which is likely the case, then it is about 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a fridge in a rental property is 8 years. Therefore, the fridge would almost be fully depreciated.
As the tenants have largely succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested. As some rent was owed to be settled from the bond, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290059 — Leaks at 69A Yule Street, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290059 — Leaks at 69A Yule Street, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022

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