What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652593?

The tribunal order states: The application for rent arrears and compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4652593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652593?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9673520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652593?

The tribunal order states: The application for rent arrears and compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4652593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652593?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9673520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Fulton Road, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652593 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord claims rent arrears of $7,868.00 to 21/6/2023.

In addition, the landlord seeks either compensation of $3,220.00 for repairs, cleaning and rubbish removal and $1,520.00 for replacement of whiteware; or alternatively $1,000.00 insurance excess.

Evin Goodman occupied the upper story of the premises pursuant to a fixed term tenancy agreement from 29/5/2022 to 31/12/2023 at $420.00 per week rent.

On 6/7/2023 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy on the grounds of abandonment, TT4614104.

Subsequently on 15/11/2023 the Tribunal decided under applications 4652631, 4653470, 4667610 and 4667669 that, among other matters the lower story of the premises was an unlawful residential tenancy.

For the same reasons, set out in the previous Order, which I do not intend to repeat, I consider the upper floor was also an unlawful residential premises.

Although there was a kitchen upstairs, unlike downstairs, there was still a regulatory breach because of the failure to comply with the Building Act 2004 and in particular fire safety separation of the two floors.

For the avoidance of doubt had I considered that the upper story of the premises was not an unlawful tenancy only the rent arrears claimed would have been successful.

The reason for this is because the evidence in support of the compensation claims was not persuasive enough to prove the matters claimed and whether the costs sought were reasonable.

Further the fact that an insurance claim had been made but there was no information about what would be covered, raised the possibility that the landlord would be compensated twice for the same claims.

As the claims have been dismissed the bond is refunded to Evin Goodman.

No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful with the claim.

Suppression is not available to the landlord.