What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463872 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5463872?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463872?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850786-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463872 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5463872?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463872?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13850786-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

886 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463872 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. The tenants all logged into the video hearing on time, except [The tenant/s], who had authorised [The tenant/s] to act on her behalf.
The landlord did not log into the video hearing, nor did she phone into it. Sixteen minutes after the hearing commenced, I called the office number I was given to enquire whether anyone from the landlord party was going to attend the hearing. I had not been given any details on the application form for the contact person for this matter. The property manager, when the call was forwarded to her by the office, thought she was in a mediation, stated she did not have access to any evidence to support the landlord’s claim and appeared to not have prepared for this hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed the tenants had not left the curtains for Jonee’s room in the storage cupboard as they claimed.
The tenants accepted that they had moved the curtains in Te’s room to Jonee’s room and put the curtains from Jonee’s room in the storage cupboard, as Te had her own curtains that better matched the décor in her room. She took her curtains when she left the tenancy. Further, the tenants say the property inspection photographs would show the curtains were in the cupboard on the day they left. The property manager did not file any property inspection photographs.
Lastly, the tenants received their full bond back. They were surprised when two to three months later they received an invoice for replacement of the curtains in Te’s room.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there were any curtains missing from the premise at the end of the tenancy. The claim for $552.00 for replacement of the curtains in Te’s room is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for a cost for curtains they have proven were still in the premise during and at the end of the tenancy, well after the tenancy ended. This issue could have and should have been resolved during the exit inspection, and not months after they had vacated the premise and received their bond back. The landlord provided insufficient evidence to prove its claims, and its internal case management of its claim was poor.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. The tenants all logged into the video hearing on time, except [The tenant/s], who had authorised [The tenant/s] to act on her behalf.

The landlord did not log into the video hearing, nor did she phone into it. Sixteen minutes after the hearing commenced, I called the office number I was given to enquire whether anyone from the landlord party was going to attend the hearing. I had not been given any details on the application form for the contact person for this matter. The property manager, when the call was forwarded to her by the office, thought she was in a mediation, stated she did not have access to any evidence to support the landlord’s claim and appeared to not have prepared for this hearing.

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

The applicant claimed the tenants had not left the curtains for Jonee’s room in the storage cupboard as they claimed.

The tenants accepted that they had moved the curtains in Te’s room to Jonee’s room and put the curtains from Jonee’s room in the storage cupboard, as Te had her own curtains that better matched the décor in her room. She took her curtains when she left the tenancy. Further, the tenants say the property inspection photographs would show the curtains were in the cupboard on the day they left. The property manager did not file any property inspection photographs.

Lastly, the tenants received their full bond back. They were surprised when two to three months later they received an invoice for replacement of the curtains in Te’s room.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there were any curtains missing from the premise at the end of the tenancy. The claim for $552.00 for replacement of the curtains in Te’s room is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for a cost for curtains they have proven were still in the premise during and at the end of the tenancy, well after the tenancy ended. This issue could have and should have been resolved during the exit inspection, and not months after they had vacated the premise and received their bond back. The landlord provided insufficient evidence to prove its claims, and its internal case management of its claim was poor.

The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463872 — Property damage at 886 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463872 — Property damage at 886 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions