What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695490?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4695490?

Tribunal’S Order Of 20 October 2023…: $1,844.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695490?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926578-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695490?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4695490?

Tribunal’S Order Of 20 October 2023…: $1,844.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695490?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926578-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Ascot Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695490 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695490. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order	$1,844.92		Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The award of $200.00 to the landlord for oven repairs in the Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order is $1,844.92.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order on 1 November 2023 (“the rehearing order”) granting a rehearing of the landlord’s claim for the replacement of an oven at the property. The order stated: “The application for rehearing on the issue of the oven only is granted on the papers and the order for $200 in relation to the oven only is stayed.”
The tenant made enquiries of the Tribunal by email on 13 November 2023 about the rehearing order. The Tribunal’s response of 14 November 2023 included: “As per the re-hearing Tribunal Order, only the issue of the oven will be discussed during the next re-hearing.”
The “Notice of Hearing – Rehearing” referred to all of the claims raised at the first hearing. This was incorrect. This incorrect notice does not establish a right for the Tribunal to rehear all the landlord’s and tenant’s applications.
As noted at the rehearing, the rehearing order set out the only matter for consideration at the rehearing. A letter from the Ministry of Justice advising of the rehearing date does not override the rehearing order and grant a rehearing of each party’s application.
I note that the landlord, having received the same notice, made an email enquiry of the Tribunal regarding the scope of the rehearing and was also advised that it was only in relation to the oven. Onus and standard of proof
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider the landlord’s claim bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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.”
In summary, for the landlord to succeed in its claim it must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has suffered loss through damage which occurred during the tenancy that it was not caused by fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim
The landlord provided evidence that a new oven was installed at the property in May 2022 and that the tenancy ended on 15 July 2023. The tenant accepted these facts.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the floor of the oven showing a variety of marks. The landlord also provided a brief report from an electrical appliance repairer dated 25 July 2023 which states: “Advise on oven liner surface gouging. Potential for rust. Oven liner needs replacing. Uneconomical to repair.”
The landlord’s belief is that something was cooked directly on the oven floor and that the damage was caused either through the cooking or attempted cleaning.
The landlord advised that the oven has not been replaced and the property has been re-let.
The tenant denied any responsibility for or knowledge of the damage. She provided a brief statement from the professional cleaner employed at the end of the tenancy which confirmed that the cleaner did not cause any damage and that: “Upon completing my job there, the oven did not have the marks that are shown in the photos.”
The tenant had requested to have the cleaner present as a witness and a translator had been arranged as requested. Unfortunately, the witness did not come to the rehearing and could not be contacted by telephone during the rehearing.
The tenant’s belief is that the damage occurred after the end of the tenancy. Decision
Firstly, by a fine margin I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was not caused by fair wear and tear. It is possible that the damage was caused by a spill that was perhaps left uncleaned and caused the damage. The lining to the oven may have been defective. It is not clear from the photographs that it was caused by “gouging” or some other unusual attempt to clean the surface.
Secondly, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven loss. The brief report from the appliance repairer states that the oven liner needs replacing but the only ground for replacement appears to be the potential for the oven floor to rust. This would limit the oven’s life but no evidence has been submitted as to how much the oven’s life has been reduced. The report does not go so far as to state that the oven is unsafe and must be replaced. Indeed, the property has been rented out with the oven in place and still operating. The landlord has failed to establish the amount of its loss.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695490. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order	$1,844.92		Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The award of $200.00 to the landlord for oven repairs in the Tribunal’s Order of 20 October 2023 is cancelled so that the total owing by the tenant to the landlord under that order is $1,844.92.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order on 1 November 2023 (“the rehearing order”) granting a rehearing of the landlord’s claim for the replacement of an oven at the property. The order stated: “The application for rehearing on the issue of the oven only is granted on the papers and the order for $200 in relation to the oven only is stayed.”
The tenant made enquiries of the Tribunal by email on 13 November 2023 about the rehearing order. The Tribunal’s response of 14 November 2023 included: “As per the re-hearing Tribunal Order, only the issue of the oven will be discussed during the next re-hearing.”
The “Notice of Hearing – Rehearing” referred to all of the claims raised at the first hearing. This was incorrect. This incorrect notice does not establish a right for the Tribunal to rehear all the landlord’s and tenant’s applications.
As noted at the rehearing, the rehearing order set out the only matter for consideration at the rehearing. A letter from the Ministry of Justice advising of the rehearing date does not override the rehearing order and grant a rehearing of each party’s application.
I note that the landlord, having received the same notice, made an email enquiry of the Tribunal regarding the scope of the rehearing and was also advised that it was only in relation to the oven. Onus and standard of proof
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider the landlord’s claim bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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.”
In summary, for the landlord to succeed in its claim it must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has suffered loss through damage which occurred during the tenancy that it was not caused by fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim
The landlord provided evidence that a new oven was installed at the property in May 2022 and that the tenancy ended on 15 July 2023. The tenant accepted these facts.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the floor of the oven showing a variety of marks. The landlord also provided a brief report from an electrical appliance repairer dated 25 July 2023 which states: “Advise on oven liner surface gouging. Potential for rust. Oven liner needs replacing. Uneconomical to repair.”
The landlord’s belief is that something was cooked directly on the oven floor and that the damage was caused either through the cooking or attempted cleaning.
The landlord advised that the oven has not been replaced and the property has been re-let.
The tenant denied any responsibility for or knowledge of the damage. She provided a brief statement from the professional cleaner employed at the end of the tenancy which confirmed that the cleaner did not cause any damage and that: “Upon completing my job there, the oven did not have the marks that are shown in the photos.”
The tenant had requested to have the cleaner present as a witness and a translator had been arranged as requested. Unfortunately, the witness did not come to the rehearing and could not be contacted by telephone during the rehearing.
The tenant’s belief is that the damage occurred after the end of the tenancy. Decision
Firstly, by a fine margin I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was not caused by fair wear and tear. It is possible that the damage was caused by a spill that was perhaps left uncleaned and caused the damage. The lining to the oven may have been defective. It is not clear from the photographs that it was caused by “gouging” or some other unusual attempt to clean the surface.
Secondly, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven loss. The brief report from the appliance repairer states that the oven liner needs replacing but the only ground for replacement appears to be the potential for the oven floor to rust. This would limit the oven’s life but no evidence has been submitted as to how much the oven’s life has been reduced. The report does not go so far as to state that the oven is unsafe and must be replaced. Indeed, the property has been rented out with the oven in place and still operating. The landlord has failed to establish the amount of its loss.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695490 — Cleanliness at 4 Ascot Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695490 — Cleanliness at 4 Ascot Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions