What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4592893?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4592893?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820883-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4592893?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4592893?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820883-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

187A Escott Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4592893 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend.

The tenant filed this application on 6 June 2023. He claims the landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in respect to ventilation and smoke alarms, failed to maintain the premises in respect to mould and pest control, and disposed of his trampoline. Tenant’s request for an adjournment

The tenant emailed the Tribunal at 8:08AM this morning that: I’m away due to an emergency family event. I will not be able to attend this today.

The landlord emailed the Tribunal that he opposed the application for an adjournment.

The tenant emailed in response: The last time I missed it Roeland was because I was in custody and couldn’t attend/ I have a lot of interest in this given you only replies yesterday I need to further prepare myself. I would consider a heart attack quite a serious event and not being in Auckland currently justified.

The Tribunal requested further explanation and evidence of the heart attack. The tenant emailed at 11:38AM (the hearing having commenced at 11:00AM) that: It is my step father who has had a heart attack. I am the applicant of the matter that was set for today so regarding the respondents claim that I seem disinterested in sorting the matter is incorrect.

The tenancy ended about a year ago on 16 January 2023. The tenant owes the landlord $37,333.71 largely for rent arrears. 1

The landlord submits the tenant’s claims are without merit and that he is making the claims to try to delay paying the debt he owes to the landlord.

He says the house met the HHS as required at the time of the tenancy. The premises had working smoke alarms and met the insulation standard. The bond was not lodged because the tenant never paid it. The Tribunal made an order that the landlord could dispose of the tenant’s belongings which had been left behind months after the tenancy had ended and the tenant had ample opportunity to collect. The tenant never reported that there was any pest problem at the premises. Repairs were carried out promptly as required.

The landlord says that the tenant’s non-attendance today is a continuation of his previous misuse of the Tribunal’s process of dragging the process out to avoid having to pay what he owes.

In this regard, on 2 August 2023, the Tribunal reluctantly granted the tenant’s application for an adjournment made on alleged family health grounds stating: 2

The adjournment application was received by me 15 minutes before the hearing was to commence. The Tribunal was left in a position where there was no alternative but to grant the adjournment.

I have asked Tenancy Services to set this matter down for hearing on an urgent basis.

No further adjournment applications by the tenant on the grounds of illness either to the tenant or his children will be considered by the Tribunal without written medical evidence being provided in support. An application for an adjournment by the tenant on any other grounds will need substantial evidence to be provided in support of the application. 1 See Landlord v Benjamin James Gillman [2023] NZTT 4495620 (dated 22 August 2023). 2 See ibid, decision on a rehearing application of the landlord’s claim.

I have viewed the file. There are some photographs of a small area of mould. Overall, however, the tenant’s substantive claim appears to lack substantial evidence and the landlord has a positive response to every allegation that has some evidence to support it. That is in the context of the Tribunal directing the parties to file any additional evidence seven days before today. 3 Therefore, the tenant’s substantive claim appears to lack merit.

Despite the Tribunal’s previous admonition that an “application for an adjournment by the tenant on any other grounds will need substantial evidence to be provided in support of the application,” the tenant has not provided evidence of his stepfather’s medical condition or related circumstances that necessitate the tenant not attending today.

It appears likely that the tenant is deliberately failing to prosecute his claim with due diligence and his failure to attend today is an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. Conclusion

The tenant’s eleventh-hour application for an adjournment is declined.

The tenant having not attended to prosecute his claim without providing adequate grounds for doing so, the application is dismissed.