What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915253?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4915253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915253?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915253?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4915253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915253?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926360-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 5, 3 Beatrix Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915253 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I was made aware today that the tenant contacted the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on 30 September 2024 seeking advice as to how to apply for an adjournment. I was informed the tenant was advised that he had to make an application to the Tribunal by emailing his application to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and producing evidence to justify the granting of an adjournment, and that he had not complied with that advice.
Jasmine Gray appeared at today’s hearing on behalf of the landlord. She confirmed she had not heard from the tenant and had attended today’s hearing based on the reasonable belief the tenant was going to appear to prosecute his case.
While we waited to see if the tenant would appear, the landlord put the landlord’s defence to the tenant’s claims to the Tribunal in support of the tenant’s claim being dismissed.
The landlord noted the tenant successfully sought an adjournment of this matter on 26 July 2024. He made his application 8 minutes before the scheduled hearing. His reason for seeking such a last-minute adjournment was because he was ill and had to get a doctor’s appointment during the period 2pm to 4:30pm, the 2.5 hours that afternoon that the hearing was scheduled for.
The landlord expressed concern that this matter has been unduly protracted, that it has sought to work with the tenant to resolve matters outside of the Tribunal and that it had been unable to do so as the tenant refuses to understand the landlord’s limitations in addressing his concerns about the tree.
The landlord provided evidence today that the tree the tenant is seeking a work order to have removed, and/or the tree branches topped, is not situated on the landlord’s property. It is situated in a neighbouring privately owned property, and it is outside of the landlord’s control to have the tree remove or have it topped.
The landlord has produced evidence: a. The tree is situated on privately owned land; b. The only part of the tree that is on the landlord’s property is some tree roots; c. The landlord has requested that the private owners of the tree remove the tree or have the tree topped. The owners of the tree have refused to do either of these things. They have had the tree trimmed, but not enough to satisfy the tenant; d. The landlord has no legal ability to force the private owners of the tree to trim the tree any further or to remove it; e. The landlord has had a contractor come to investigate whether the roots of the tree, that are on its land, could be ground down or removed without killing the tree. The contractor has confirmed any attempt to grind or remove the roots would kill the tree. The landlord is concerned that this type of response to the tenant’s complaints may start a legal dispute with the tenant’s neighbours. The landlord has no appetite to enter into this sort of dispute with the neighbour, who has been reasonably accommodating getting the tree trimmed at their own cost; and f. The landlord has asked the tenant to mow around the roots and not over the roots. This is possible. There is no need for the tenant to have to mow over the tree roots.
The landlord also produced evidence that it has instructed the tenant not to mow over the roots. He did so, despite the landlord’s instruction. The landlord is therefore not liable for any costs incurred by the tenant for his careless action that led to any damage to his lawn mower.
The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the alternative, the tenant’s application is also dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove his claim, when the landlord has produced sufficient evidence today to disprove the tenant’s claims.
The landlord has proved it has reached the end of its ability to resolve the tenant’s complaint about the tree and has also proven that it has no legal liability for the damage to the tenant’s lawn mower. Name suppression
The tenant made an application for his name and identifying details to be suppressed.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct in relation to this matter.
The tenant’s non-publication application is dismissed. .

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I was made aware today that the tenant contacted the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on 30 September 2024 seeking advice as to how to apply for an adjournment. I was informed the tenant was advised that he had to make an application to the Tribunal by emailing his application to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and producing evidence to justify the granting of an adjournment, and that he had not complied with that advice.
Jasmine Gray appeared at today’s hearing on behalf of the landlord. She confirmed she had not heard from the tenant and had attended today’s hearing based on the reasonable belief the tenant was going to appear to prosecute his case.
While we waited to see if the tenant would appear, the landlord put the landlord’s defence to the tenant’s claims to the Tribunal in support of the tenant’s claim being dismissed.
The landlord noted the tenant successfully sought an adjournment of this matter on 26 July 2024. He made his application 8 minutes before the scheduled hearing. His reason for seeking such a last-minute adjournment was because he was ill and had to get a doctor’s appointment during the period 2pm to 4:30pm, the 2.5 hours that afternoon that the hearing was scheduled for.
The landlord expressed concern that this matter has been unduly protracted, that it has sought to work with the tenant to resolve matters outside of the Tribunal and that it had been unable to do so as the tenant refuses to understand the landlord’s limitations in addressing his concerns about the tree.
The landlord provided evidence today that the tree the tenant is seeking a work order to have removed, and/or the tree branches topped, is not situated on the landlord’s property. It is situated in a neighbouring privately owned property, and it is outside of the landlord’s control to have the tree remove or have it topped.
The landlord has produced evidence: a. The tree is situated on privately owned land; b. The only part of the tree that is on the landlord’s property is some tree roots; c. The landlord has requested that the private owners of the tree remove the tree or have the tree topped. The owners of the tree have refused to do either of these things. They have had the tree trimmed, but not enough to satisfy the tenant; d. The landlord has no legal ability to force the private owners of the tree to trim the tree any further or to remove it; e. The landlord has had a contractor come to investigate whether the roots of the tree, that are on its land, could be ground down or removed without killing the tree. The contractor has confirmed any attempt to grind or remove the roots would kill the tree. The landlord is concerned that this type of response to the tenant’s complaints may start a legal dispute with the tenant’s neighbours. The landlord has no appetite to enter into this sort of dispute with the neighbour, who has been reasonably accommodating getting the tree trimmed at their own cost; and f. The landlord has asked the tenant to mow around the roots and not over the roots. This is possible. There is no need for the tenant to have to mow over the tree roots.
The landlord also produced evidence that it has instructed the tenant not to mow over the roots. He did so, despite the landlord’s instruction. The landlord is therefore not liable for any costs incurred by the tenant for his careless action that led to any damage to his lawn mower.
The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the alternative, the tenant’s application is also dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove his claim, when the landlord has produced sufficient evidence today to disprove the tenant’s claims.
The landlord has proved it has reached the end of its ability to resolve the tenant’s complaint about the tree and has also proven that it has no legal liability for the damage to the tenant’s lawn mower. Name suppression
The tenant made an application for his name and identifying details to be suppressed.
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.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct in relation to this matter.
The tenant’s non-publication application is dismissed. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915253 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 3 Beatrix Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915253 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 3 Beatrix Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions