What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322340 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5322340?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322340?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12451792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322340 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5322340?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322340?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12451792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322340 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the teleconference hearing. The phone numbers for the tenant, the last three digits being 970 and 175 respectively, were both called twice, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their termination claim.

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

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 claimed $1,040.67 for water bills but it was unclear as to which date this amount of water bills was claimed.

The landlord provided a water ledger but only provided three water company invoices before the hearing. The three water company invoices provided before the hearing were for the following periods: a. 14.4.2025 to 16.5.2025. b. 16.5.2025 to 17.6.2025. c. 17.6.2025 to 17.7.2025.

However, on the landlord’s water ledger, the last zero balance in the cumulative water arrears column was on 18 July 2024. The landlord did not provide any water company invoices from 19 July 2024 up to 14 April 2025 as supporting evidence to prove their claim. Nor was there a water company invoice provided for the period 17 July 2025 to 18 August 2025, even though this transaction was on the water ledger provided. The landlord did provide the water company invoice for the period 18 August 2025 to 16 September 2025 during the hearing, though this invoice was only a credit to the tenant, with nothing owing for water that month.

Given the above, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for water bills in the amount of $1,040.67. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee

As the landlord’s remaining claim for outgoings is dismissed, I do not award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested name suppression. However, as the landlord has not been successful with the claim, nor was there any evidence provided as to whether the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name, I do not grant the landlord’s request for name suppression. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their termination claim.

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

The applicant claimed $1,040.67 for water bills but it was unclear as to which date this amount of water bills was claimed.

Given the above, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for water bills in the amount of $1,040.67. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee

As the landlord’s remaining claim for outgoings is dismissed, I do not award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322340 — Tenancy dispute at 18 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322340 — Tenancy dispute at 18 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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