What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659350?

The tribunal order states: Anca Mirela Coroian’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4659350?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9866239-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659350?

The tribunal order states: Anca Mirela Coroian’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4659350?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9866239-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 7, 621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4659350 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Anca Mirela Coroian’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application relates to the tenant’s tenancy at Unit 7/621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Pininsula, Auckland.
The tenant seeks orders in relation to car parking and payment of a windscreen repair.
Before considering the claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenant) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not correct. This is referred to as the burden of proof.
Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted 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. Car Parking
The tenancy is one of a block of units at 621 Te Atatu Road. The tenants were allowed to park 1x car in this complex area, but there were no designated parking spaces. The tenancy agreement for each unit did not specify where the car park for each unit belonged.
The tenant moved into unit 7 in December 2020. She began to have issues with where the other tenants and visitor cars were parked in the complex and referred to a number of examples. She raised complaints with the landlord but felt these were ignored or not responded to appropriately. She was sufficiently concerned about the matter and issued the landlord with a 14-day notice.
Section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a tenant in his use of the premises.
The landlord contends that they have undertaken reasonable steps to attend to the tenant’s complaints in a timely manner. The landlord stated that due to a high level of complaints received from multiple tenants regarding the car parking issues in the complex, it mapped out a designated parking space for units 1,2,3,5,6 and 7. Visitors are not able to park inside the complex and must park their car on the road. The property manager gave direct evidence that each tenant who breached the parking rules were issued a breach notice, including the tenant of unit 7. The landlord noted that the tenant of unit 7 believes she is the only one who has been breached, but says this is incorrect.
The landlord noted that 8/621 Te Atatu Road (the large house at the front) is not required to comply with the above rules as they have a garage and one off-street park at the front of the property. However, they were given a reminder about only one car parking in front of the garage when the tenant advised that she was struggling to get past the cars.
The landlord submitted that there were further issues between units 6 and 7 relating to the car parking. The tenant at unit 6 does not have a car, but her carer and visitors would park in her designated parking space, and sometimes would park in unit 7’s space. Due to this, the landlord ordered Parking signs for each unit which stated “Unit #/ 621 Te Atatu Road – Tenant Parking”.
Due to the tenant not wanting anyone to park in front of her unit, the landlord met with a contractor onsite to measure up the area and find a new parking space for unit 6. They spoke with the tenant while onsite and advised her they were thinking of moving her parking space closer to her front door, and putting unit 6’s space along the fence, but slightly down. The landlord says the tenant agreed to the new designated space during the onsite meeting and the contractor marked out the car park for unit 6 and installed all the signs. However, on 9 June 2023, the landlord received a request from the tenant to install a shed where her new designated car park was meant to be.
Following discussions and mediation with the tenant, the landlord has advised it is willing to accommodate a change to the current parking layout to allow the tenant to park in her desired area. The landlord proposes that the tenant’s current parking space be moved closer to her front door and unit 6’s parking space be relocated to the tenant’s current space. The landlord will continue to use signs at designated car spaces to prevent unauthorised parking.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the landlord has complied with their obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is not interfered with by other tenants.
The tenancy is allocated a single carpark but the tenancy agreement does not stipulate a designated carpark. The landlord has since mapped out designated single car parks to units and installed appropriate signage to prevent unauthorised car parking. The allocated designated car park by the landlord is the only park the tenant may use. I consider the options proposed by the landlord as designated car parks for the tenant, whether it be the car park for unit 7 in the current parking map or the proposed parking map as produced by the landlord at the hearing, are both entirely reasonable. If she has not done so already, it is open for the tenant to finalise her decision directly with the landlord as to which option she prefers.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached any provision of the Tenancy Agreement or any legal obligation under the RTA.
The tenant is not entitled to make a unilateral decision regarding the allocated designated car park for unit 7 nor is she entitled to a declaration that no other parking space be made available in front of her unit.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Car windscreen damage
On 31 July 2023, the tenant advised the landlord by email that her car windscreen had cracked. She believed it could have been the neighbours or the exterior heat pump unit.
The landlord disputed that the exterior heat pump was the cause of the damage. They rely on affidavits from OxyAir, Airspace and Novus Repair and Replacement confirming the heat pump unit would not have caused the windscreen to crack.
The problem the tenant faces is that there is no objective evidence provided to establish the cause of the cracked windscreen. There is no video or eyewitness evidence as to what did or did not occur. This is well below the level required to prove that the landlord is liable for the cost of the windscreen repair.
In determining this matter, the Tribunal cannot rely on speculation or assumptions, it must rely on objective evidence. After giving this matter careful consideration, I find that the evidence falls short. With an absence of objective evidence as to the cause of the cracked windscreen, I am not satisfied that the landlord is responsible.
This claim must therefore be dismissed. Procedural note
Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties. I mistakenly thought the order had been sent some time ago. I apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Order

Anca Mirela Coroian’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application relates to the tenant’s tenancy at Unit 7/621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Pininsula, Auckland.
The tenant seeks orders in relation to car parking and payment of a windscreen repair.
Before considering the claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenant) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not correct. This is referred to as the burden of proof.
Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted 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. Car Parking
The tenancy is one of a block of units at 621 Te Atatu Road. The tenants were allowed to park 1x car in this complex area, but there were no designated parking spaces. The tenancy agreement for each unit did not specify where the car park for each unit belonged.
The tenant moved into unit 7 in December 2020. She began to have issues with where the other tenants and visitor cars were parked in the complex and referred to a number of examples. She raised complaints with the landlord but felt these were ignored or not responded to appropriately. She was sufficiently concerned about the matter and issued the landlord with a 14-day notice.
Section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a tenant in his use of the premises.
The landlord contends that they have undertaken reasonable steps to attend to the tenant’s complaints in a timely manner. The landlord stated that due to a high level of complaints received from multiple tenants regarding the car parking issues in the complex, it mapped out a designated parking space for units 1,2,3,5,6 and 7. Visitors are not able to park inside the complex and must park their car on the road. The property manager gave direct evidence that each tenant who breached the parking rules were issued a breach notice, including the tenant of unit 7. The landlord noted that the tenant of unit 7 believes she is the only one who has been breached, but says this is incorrect.
The landlord noted that 8/621 Te Atatu Road (the large house at the front) is not required to comply with the above rules as they have a garage and one off-street park at the front of the property. However, they were given a reminder about only one car parking in front of the garage when the tenant advised that she was struggling to get past the cars.
The landlord submitted that there were further issues between units 6 and 7 relating to the car parking. The tenant at unit 6 does not have a car, but her carer and visitors would park in her designated parking space, and sometimes would park in unit 7’s space. Due to this, the landlord ordered Parking signs for each unit which stated “Unit #/ 621 Te Atatu Road – Tenant Parking”.
Due to the tenant not wanting anyone to park in front of her unit, the landlord met with a contractor onsite to measure up the area and find a new parking space for unit 6. They spoke with the tenant while onsite and advised her they were thinking of moving her parking space closer to her front door, and putting unit 6’s space along the fence, but slightly down. The landlord says the tenant agreed to the new designated space during the onsite meeting and the contractor marked out the car park for unit 6 and installed all the signs. However, on 9 June 2023, the landlord received a request from the tenant to install a shed where her new designated car park was meant to be.
Following discussions and mediation with the tenant, the landlord has advised it is willing to accommodate a change to the current parking layout to allow the tenant to park in her desired area. The landlord proposes that the tenant’s current parking space be moved closer to her front door and unit 6’s parking space be relocated to the tenant’s current space. The landlord will continue to use signs at designated car spaces to prevent unauthorised parking.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the landlord has complied with their obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is not interfered with by other tenants.
The tenancy is allocated a single carpark but the tenancy agreement does not stipulate a designated carpark. The landlord has since mapped out designated single car parks to units and installed appropriate signage to prevent unauthorised car parking. The allocated designated car park by the landlord is the only park the tenant may use. I consider the options proposed by the landlord as designated car parks for the tenant, whether it be the car park for unit 7 in the current parking map or the proposed parking map as produced by the landlord at the hearing, are both entirely reasonable. If she has not done so already, it is open for the tenant to finalise her decision directly with the landlord as to which option she prefers.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached any provision of the Tenancy Agreement or any legal obligation under the RTA.
The tenant is not entitled to make a unilateral decision regarding the allocated designated car park for unit 7 nor is she entitled to a declaration that no other parking space be made available in front of her unit.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Car windscreen damage
On 31 July 2023, the tenant advised the landlord by email that her car windscreen had cracked. She believed it could have been the neighbours or the exterior heat pump unit.
The landlord disputed that the exterior heat pump was the cause of the damage. They rely on affidavits from OxyAir, Airspace and Novus Repair and Replacement confirming the heat pump unit would not have caused the windscreen to crack.
The problem the tenant faces is that there is no objective evidence provided to establish the cause of the cracked windscreen. There is no video or eyewitness evidence as to what did or did not occur. This is well below the level required to prove that the landlord is liable for the cost of the windscreen repair.
In determining this matter, the Tribunal cannot rely on speculation or assumptions, it must rely on objective evidence. After giving this matter careful consideration, I find that the evidence falls short. With an absence of objective evidence as to the cause of the cracked windscreen, I am not satisfied that the landlord is responsible.
This claim must therefore be dismissed. Procedural note
Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties. I mistakenly thought the order had been sent some time ago. I apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659350 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 7, 621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659350 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 7, 621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions