What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707672?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4707672?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707672?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276365-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707672?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4707672?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707672?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276365-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

72 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707672 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference: Ms Youn was represented by Mr Kim.

This was a hearing to consider whether or not this is a dispute subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, over which the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.

The dispute involves several claims including Healthy Homes Standards breaches, and breaches of smoke alarm regulations.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. In the first instance, it is for the applicant, Mr Hwang to convince the Tribunal that it does have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Mr Hwang claimed that he visited the property on 7 th or 8 th October 2023. He says the tenancy started on 9 October 2023 and ended on 12 October 2023. Later in his submissions, Mr Hwang said although he had said he stayed at the property, he never slept a night there and he never moved any furniture into the property. Mr Hwang stated that when he stayed there he only had his backpack and his laptop with him, and then he left because he had other committments.

Mr Hwang claimed that he paid $500.00 to the landlord, but because both he and the landlord are Korean the agreements were verbal and he received no receipt.

Mr Hwang stated that he had lost the phone that he was using at this time, which has more evidence on it, including photographs.

In response Mr Kim stated that neither he nor Ms Youn ever met Mr Hwang. Ms Youn confirmed this. Mr Kim stated that they had a viewing for multiple people at 6.30 pm on 9 October 2023, they then completed Pre-Tenancy Applications for several people on 10 October 2023, and they made an agreement with a person on 12 October 2023. Some of these documents were provided with applicants’ details removed.

Mr Kim stated that being Korean does not mean that agreements are never in writing. The agreements with other applicants are evidence of this. He denied ever receiving any money from Mr Hwang.

Mr Hwang has no documentary evidence or information to support his assertion that he had a right to occupy Ms Youn’s premises. Nor on his account did Mr Hwang occupy Ms Youn’s premises; by his own account he never stayed one night. At most he may have visited on one occasion, but there is doubt over even this.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was any residential agreement between himself and Ms Youn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference: Ms Youn was represented by Mr Kim.

This was a hearing to consider whether or not this is a dispute subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, over which the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.

The dispute involves several claims including Healthy Homes Standards breaches, and breaches of smoke alarm regulations.

Mr Hwang claimed that he paid $500.00 to the landlord, but because both he and the landlord are Korean the agreements were verbal and he received no receipt.

Mr Hwang stated that he had lost the phone that he was using at this time, which has more evidence on it, including photographs.

Mr Kim stated that being Korean does not mean that agreements are never in writing. The agreements with other applicants are evidence of this. He denied ever receiving any money from Mr Hwang.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was any residential agreement between himself and Ms Youn.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707672 — Smoke alarms at 72 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707672 — Smoke alarms at 72 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

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