What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4736932?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4736932?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736932?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4736932?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4736932?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736932?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Pickaberry Avenue, Karaka, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4736932 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. Telephone calls to both tenants on their individual numbers went unanswered to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish their respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition. They claim that the tenants are responsible for a blocked kitchen sink pipe which had to be disassembled and cleaned by a plumber.
The landlord says that the tenants moved out on 13 September 2023. The landlord undertook a final inspection on 14 September 2023.
The bond was refunded in full to the tenants.
The landlord received a phone call from the new tenants stating that the kitchen sink was blocked. The landlord recorded in their application that the new tenants had only been there 11 days. The landlord sent an email to the owner asking for permission to send a plumber. The plumber arrived on 11 October 2023 and found the trap filled with rice and other food.
The landlord phoned these tenants in respect if this. The tenants denied all responsibility.
The landlord stated that the tenants were running an ‘Uber Eats’ at the tenancy address which involved a lot of cooking. The landlord tried to speak with the female tenant about the blocked kitchen pipe however was told to deal with her husband. The husband denied all responsibility for it.
In support of their claim, the landlord provided a plumber invoice dated 12 October 2023 from Ross’s Plumbing. I have also sighted a letter from the same plumber confirming that the blockage was caused by food. The plumber’s opinion was that the blockage would have built up over time. I have also sighted the photographic evidence filed by the landlord with the application.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that these tenants are responsible for this.
The landlord conducted the exit inspection on 14 September 2023 and it was not until 11 October 2023, nearly four weeks later, that this issue was brought to their attention. Had the landlord discovered this during the exit inspection then I would have been persuaded that these tenants should accept responsibility for this claim. Having regard to the passage of time from when these tenants moved out to when the new tenants raised this as an issue, I am not convinced that these tenants should be held liable for this. Quite simply, the landlord’s claim is not supported by the evidence filed with the application.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Because the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. Telephone calls to both tenants on their individual numbers went unanswered to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish their respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition. They claim that the tenants are responsible for a blocked kitchen sink pipe which had to be disassembled and cleaned by a plumber.
The landlord says that the tenants moved out on 13 September 2023. The landlord undertook a final inspection on 14 September 2023.
The bond was refunded in full to the tenants.
The landlord received a phone call from the new tenants stating that the kitchen sink was blocked. The landlord recorded in their application that the new tenants had only been there 11 days. The landlord sent an email to the owner asking for permission to send a plumber. The plumber arrived on 11 October 2023 and found the trap filled with rice and other food.
The landlord phoned these tenants in respect if this. The tenants denied all responsibility.
The landlord stated that the tenants were running an ‘Uber Eats’ at the tenancy address which involved a lot of cooking. The landlord tried to speak with the female tenant about the blocked kitchen pipe however was told to deal with her husband. The husband denied all responsibility for it.
In support of their claim, the landlord provided a plumber invoice dated 12 October 2023 from Ross’s Plumbing. I have also sighted a letter from the same plumber confirming that the blockage was caused by food. The plumber’s opinion was that the blockage would have built up over time. I have also sighted the photographic evidence filed by the landlord with the application.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that these tenants are responsible for this.
The landlord conducted the exit inspection on 14 September 2023 and it was not until 11 October 2023, nearly four weeks later, that this issue was brought to their attention. Had the landlord discovered this during the exit inspection then I would have been persuaded that these tenants should accept responsibility for this claim. Having regard to the passage of time from when these tenants moved out to when the new tenants raised this as an issue, I am not convinced that these tenants should be held liable for this. Quite simply, the landlord’s claim is not supported by the evidence filed with the application.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Because the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4736932 — Leaks at 77 Pickaberry Avenue, Karaka, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4736932 — Leaks at 77 Pickaberry Avenue, Karaka, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions