What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305464 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (5871415-002) to [The landlord/s],

How much money was awarded in case 5305464?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305464?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12645332-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305464 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (5871415-002) to [The landlord/s],

How much money was awarded in case 5305464?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305464?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12645332-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Subritzky Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305464 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended the hearing via teleconference and was assisted by the court appointed interpreter.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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.

The applicant claims that the landlord breached their obligations in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The only evidence provided by the applicant was a ‘report’ which had been prepared by a friend.

The report, whist comprehensive is not the type of report which the Tribunal can rely on when making an assessment whether there has been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. At the very least I would have expected a Healthy Homes assessment report prepared by a qualified professional, along with an incoming inspection report and photographs.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached their obligations as claimed.

The tenant’s claim has not been established and must therefore be dismissed.

The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful. For the same reasons I do not reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant consented during the hearing to the release of her bond to the landlord. These funds should be applied to the outstanding rent debt.

Reasons