What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796315?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4796315?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796315?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10446133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796315?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4796315?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796315?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10446133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Barrow Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4796315 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference from Auckland.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed her application on 31 January 2024 seeking a work order in respect of several issues with the premises.

The tenant confirmed during the hearing that she is no longer residing at the address. The tenant’s application is for a work order in respect of a list of maintenance items. The tenant says that the none of the work required was done while she was living there.

During the hearing the tenant provided a USB memory stick of further evidence in support.

The tenant moved out in May 2024. She is now residing elsewhere in Bluff. The tenant is still clearing some outdoor posts and other belongings from outside the property. During the hearing she confirmed that she was yet to return the keys.

The tenant now claims that the landlord’s notice to terminate is retaliatory. The landlord also seeks compensation in respect of issues with Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant’s application was confined to a work order. This is now a moot application given that she is no longer residing there. The claims she now raises have not been advanced in her original application.

Should the tenant wish to advance a claim against this landlord in respect of Healthy Home breaches and retaliatory notice then she will need to file a new application with supporting evidence with the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Because the tenant’s application has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant sought suppression of her name. However, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful. I make no order for name suppression.

I make no order in respect of the bond. In the absence of a claim by the landlord the bond should be returned to the tenant as soon as the keys have been returned.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference from Auckland.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed her application on 31 January 2024 seeking a work order in respect of several issues with the premises.

During the hearing the tenant provided a USB memory stick of further evidence in support.

The tenant now claims that the landlord’s notice to terminate is retaliatory. The landlord also seeks compensation in respect of issues with Healthy Homes Standards.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Because the tenant’s application has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant sought suppression of her name. However, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful. I make no order for name suppression.

I make no order in respect of the bond. In the absence of a claim by the landlord the bond should be returned to the tenant as soon as the keys have been returned.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796315 — Healthy homes at 36 Barrow Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796315 — Healthy homes at 36 Barrow Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions