What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356000 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5356000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356000?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356000 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5356000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356000?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13142871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4A Ronald Avenue, Glenbrook, RD 1, Glenbrook 2681 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356000 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Mr Lo Tam was assisted by Ms Butler. Mrs Conquer represented the landlord. Burden of proof:

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is 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.

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The parties agree that the tenancy began on 18 February 2022 and ended after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice with an agreed end date of 02 September 2025.

The tenant says that he made an overpayment at the end of the tenancy. In the course of the hearing the tenant explained that three final rent payments were made and two water bills invoices were provided by the landlord. The tenant did not explain how much overpayment was made.

The tenant did not provide any supporting documentary information as part of his application. This meant that neither the Tribunal nor the respondent were able to consider the particulars of the claim prior to the hearing.

The landlord explained that at the end of the tenancy an overpayment of $186.02 had been made by the tenant, but the tenant declined to provide a bank account number to the landlord for the landlord to make this payment to. She also said that her records were balanced every day, and her accounting system had to reconcile with her bank records. This is normal business accounting practice. She said if there was an overpayment it was clearly evident, and that her accounts were audited by an accountant.

The tenant confirmed he had declined to provide a bank account for the landlord to refund the $186.02 into, and that he had been advised not to communicate with the landlord after making his application to Tenancy Services.

The particulars of the applicant’s claim are not clear. On the balance of probabilities he has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that an overpayment has been made that exceeds the amount of $186.02.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Mr Lo Tam was assisted by Ms Butler. Mrs Conquer represented the landlord. Burden of proof:

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The parties agree that the tenancy began on 18 February 2022 and ended after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice with an agreed end date of 02 September 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356000 — Tenancy dispute at 4A Ronald Avenue, Glenbrook, RD 1, Glenbrook 2681

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356000 — Tenancy dispute at 4A Ronald Avenue, Glenbrook, RD 1, Glenbrook 2681

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions