What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715290?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4715290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715290?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10033743-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715290?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4715290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715290?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10033743-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 201, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4715290 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

There were two hearings. The first hearing was held on 27 November 2023. The landlord did not attend that hearing. The second hearing was held on 4 March 2024. Both parties attended the second hearing.

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages in relation to the landlord entering without notice.

After the first hearing the proceedings were adjourned. Further directions were made in the adjournment order including a summons for the landlord to appear at the second hearing.

The landlord advised that they had not been served with the tenant’s application or notice of the first hearing as the address for service was an administration email address for the company.

At the first hearing an issue had arisen in respect of the notice to terminate given by the landlord to the tenant. It appeared that the notice did not comply with the Act. Due to this, the tenant did not vacate the premises at the end of the notice period. Given that the notice did not comply I indicated that the landlord would need to serve a new notice if it is intended that the tenancy is to terminate.

A further issue arose in respect of the power and gas amounts paid by the tenant. While the parties do not agree with the amount that has been paid and received this issue is not one for the Tribunal to deal with as it is not included in the tenant’s application.

At the first hearing the tenant referred to maintenance issues and in particular repair of the toilet. This has now been repaired. On the evidence produced I don’t consider that there has been any significant delay in the landlord attending to this maintenance once it was aware.

Finally, the tenant raised the issue of security and the entry of people to the premises without her knowledge or consent. At the second hearing the tenant referred to someone entering the premises while she was overseas as she noticed that two pieces of furniture, a cabinet and chair, had been changed.

Both parties submitted evidence in relation to the furniture. On the evidence submitted I am not able to determine that the furniture has been changed. The tenant referred to the cabinet having water damage and I note that the early photograph of the cabinet shows that there may have been water damage.

Also, the claim by the tenant that other people entered her tenancy is not supported by any evidence.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord, or an agent of the landlord, has entered the tenancy without the tenant’s consent or knowledge.

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages in relation to the landlord entering without notice.

After the first hearing the proceedings were adjourned. Further directions were made in the adjournment order including a summons for the landlord to appear at the second hearing.

The landlord advised that they had not been served with the tenant’s application or notice of the first hearing as the address for service was an administration email address for the company.

Also, the claim by the tenant that other people entered her tenancy is not supported by any evidence.

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715290 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 201, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715290 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 201, 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions