What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867213?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6313000-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4867213?

Water Rates: $22.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867213?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10724715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867213?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6313000-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4867213?

Water Rates: $22.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867213?

The primary dispute was Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10724715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Thomas Rielly Avenue, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867213 — Water Rates

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

11 Thomas Rielly Avenue, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867213 — Water Rates | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867213. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$22.87		Water rates

Claims and awards for application 4867213. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $22.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6313000-001) immediately apportioned as follows: North Shore Rentals Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Abhey: $22.87 Deep Vijay Purohit and Jyoti Deep Purohit: $2,977.13
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for damage.
The tenancy ended when the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice. The landlord said that the owner or his family wished to live in the premises. The landlord was unable to produce a copy of the notice to terminate.
The tenant said that the day after they vacated new tenants moved into the premises. It seems that the notice to terminate may have been unlawful.
The landlord claimed for wall damage, stained carpet, damaged cooktop and oven screen and digital lock. The landlord produced quotes for the repairs. None of the damage has been repaired four and a half months after the tenancy ended where it has been re tenanted. The landlord was unable to produce any invoices for work carried out.
The landlord produced two piles of photographs, one pile of which was in a zip lock bag. One was apparently from before the tenancy commenced and the other bag was from after the tenancy ended. None of the photographs were dated. The landlord also did not produce a copy of the photographs for the tenant.
The landlord did not produce any inspection reports to accompany the photographs. It was not clear from the photographs which room or part of the room was being photographed.
In the pile of photographs from before the tenancy commenced there is a photograph of the carpet with stains. The landlord thought that the photograph may have got mixed into the wrong pile or bag.
The landlord provided a photograph of a wall hole which the tenant said was caused when the handrail fell down. The tenant said that the handrail was not fixed for more than four months and in the end, he paid for it to be repaired.
Given the way that the evidence was produced I am not satisfied that there was any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy. Also, as the landlord has not carried out any repairs where the premises have been re tenanted so no loss has been suffered.
As the landlord has not been substantially successful with the application I have not refunded the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867213. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$22.87		Water rates

Claims and awards for application 4867213. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $22.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6313000-001) immediately apportioned as follows: North Shore Rentals Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Abhey: $22.87 Deep Vijay Purohit and Jyoti Deep Purohit: $2,977.13
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for damage.
The tenancy ended when the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice. The landlord said that the owner or his family wished to live in the premises. The landlord was unable to produce a copy of the notice to terminate.
The tenant said that the day after they vacated new tenants moved into the premises. It seems that the notice to terminate may have been unlawful.
The landlord claimed for wall damage, stained carpet, damaged cooktop and oven screen and digital lock. The landlord produced quotes for the repairs. None of the damage has been repaired four and a half months after the tenancy ended where it has been re tenanted. The landlord was unable to produce any invoices for work carried out.
The landlord produced two piles of photographs, one pile of which was in a zip lock bag. One was apparently from before the tenancy commenced and the other bag was from after the tenancy ended. None of the photographs were dated. The landlord also did not produce a copy of the photographs for the tenant.
The landlord did not produce any inspection reports to accompany the photographs. It was not clear from the photographs which room or part of the room was being photographed.
In the pile of photographs from before the tenancy commenced there is a photograph of the carpet with stains. The landlord thought that the photograph may have got mixed into the wrong pile or bag.
The landlord provided a photograph of a wall hole which the tenant said was caused when the handrail fell down. The tenant said that the handrail was not fixed for more than four months and in the end, he paid for it to be repaired.
Given the way that the evidence was produced I am not satisfied that there was any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy. Also, as the landlord has not carried out any repairs where the premises have been re tenanted so no loss has been suffered.
As the landlord has not been substantially successful with the application I have not refunded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867213 — Water Rates at 11 Thomas Rielly Avenue, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867213 — Water Rates at 11 Thomas Rielly Avenue, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

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