What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972855?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (3451281-005) to Martin

How much money was awarded in case 4972855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972855?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947634-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972855?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (3451281-005) to Martin

How much money was awarded in case 4972855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972855?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947634-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Gilders Grove, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972855 — Mould & damp

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (3451281-005) to Martin Dennis Jarvis and Michelle Angela Histen immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 October 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2023 and ended on 2 July 2024.The undisputed evidence was that these are (with the exception of the issue in dispute) very good tenants.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage which the landlord says occurred during the course of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing. An example of this occurred in this hearing. The property manager said that she had been told by a contractor that the tenant had admitted to them that a flood had occurred in the bathroom. The property manager very sensibly approached the contractors to have them put this allegation in writing. For reasons that were not apparent at the hearing, the contractors refused to do so. I have accordingly ignored this allegation in the decision making process.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
In the Tribunal’s view that landlord’s claim fails at the first hurdle. Has the landlord been able to satisfy the Tribunal that the damage occurred during the tenancy?
The tenant evidence was that when they first moved into the premises, they noticed a gap in a mitre joint on the skirting board near the bathroom door. It was not a large gap and they gave it no further thought.
On 23 February 2024, the landlord gave the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy as the landlord wished to place the house on the market for sale.
The landlord instructed RED LBP Building Inspectors to conduct a building inspection. That inspection was carried out on 19 June 2024 in the presence of the tenant. At the end of the inspection, the inspector conducted a moisture reading and found a high moisture reading ( as distinct from actual moisture) in an area of the hallway outside the bathroom. The inspector looked to see if he could find the cause, but was unable to come to any conclusion.
A plumber was called to investigate further. This investigation on 24 July 2024 was also carried out in the presence of the tenant. The plumber said that he suspected that the moisture discovered by the building inspector was caused by a leak in the shower tanking membrane.
During the visit by the plumber, the tenant drew the attention of the plumber to a repair that had been carried out to the left hand internal architrave of the bathroom door. At some point prior to the commencement of this tenancy, a small piece of the architrave had been removed and replaced. The tenant says that he discussed a possible theory with the plumber that the repair had been needed in the past, due to a moisture issue and that the tanking membrane leak was at the heart of the problem. The plumber suggested that a tiler should be called to deal with the issue.
The landlord did not instruct a tiler, but arranged for a builder to be called to conduct an invasive investigation. The outcome of the investigation was that the builder suspected that the cause of the moisture was a flood in the bathroom area.
The tenants were adamant that no flood had occurred during the course of the tenancy.
The evidence would suggest that there are a number of potential causes for the damage, including as but one, an accidental flood caused by these tenants. The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The evidence placed before the Tribunal is such that I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the increased moisture reading had as its cause, a flood caused by the tenants during the term of this tenancy. For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The landlord not having been wholly or substantially successful, I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The bond is to be released to the tenant.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.
For the sake of completeness, I record that the landlord filed documents with Tenancy Services after the hearing. By that time the hearing was completed. It was not appropriate for the Tribunal to consider them in its decision making process and I did not do so.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (3451281-005) to Martin Dennis Jarvis and Michelle Angela Histen immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 October 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2023 and ended on 2 July 2024.The undisputed evidence was that these are (with the exception of the issue in dispute) very good tenants.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage which the landlord says occurred during the course of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing. An example of this occurred in this hearing. The property manager said that she had been told by a contractor that the tenant had admitted to them that a flood had occurred in the bathroom. The property manager very sensibly approached the contractors to have them put this allegation in writing. For reasons that were not apparent at the hearing, the contractors refused to do so. I have accordingly ignored this allegation in the decision making process.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
In the Tribunal’s view that landlord’s claim fails at the first hurdle. Has the landlord been able to satisfy the Tribunal that the damage occurred during the tenancy?
The tenant evidence was that when they first moved into the premises, they noticed a gap in a mitre joint on the skirting board near the bathroom door. It was not a large gap and they gave it no further thought.
On 23 February 2024, the landlord gave the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy as the landlord wished to place the house on the market for sale.
The landlord instructed RED LBP Building Inspectors to conduct a building inspection. That inspection was carried out on 19 June 2024 in the presence of the tenant. At the end of the inspection, the inspector conducted a moisture reading and found a high moisture reading ( as distinct from actual moisture) in an area of the hallway outside the bathroom. The inspector looked to see if he could find the cause, but was unable to come to any conclusion.
A plumber was called to investigate further. This investigation on 24 July 2024 was also carried out in the presence of the tenant. The plumber said that he suspected that the moisture discovered by the building inspector was caused by a leak in the shower tanking membrane.
During the visit by the plumber, the tenant drew the attention of the plumber to a repair that had been carried out to the left hand internal architrave of the bathroom door. At some point prior to the commencement of this tenancy, a small piece of the architrave had been removed and replaced. The tenant says that he discussed a possible theory with the plumber that the repair had been needed in the past, due to a moisture issue and that the tanking membrane leak was at the heart of the problem. The plumber suggested that a tiler should be called to deal with the issue.
The landlord did not instruct a tiler, but arranged for a builder to be called to conduct an invasive investigation. The outcome of the investigation was that the builder suspected that the cause of the moisture was a flood in the bathroom area.
The tenants were adamant that no flood had occurred during the course of the tenancy.
The evidence would suggest that there are a number of potential causes for the damage, including as but one, an accidental flood caused by these tenants. The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The evidence placed before the Tribunal is such that I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the increased moisture reading had as its cause, a flood caused by the tenants during the term of this tenancy. For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The landlord not having been wholly or substantially successful, I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The bond is to be released to the tenant.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.
For the sake of completeness, I record that the landlord filed documents with Tenancy Services after the hearing. By that time the hearing was completed. It was not appropriate for the Tribunal to consider them in its decision making process and I did not do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972855 — Mould & damp at 5 Gilders Grove, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972855 — Mould & damp at 5 Gilders Grove, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions