What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019671?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5019671?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019671?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019671?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5019671?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019671?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

155 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019671 — Property damage

Order

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord addressed the Tribunal today regarding claims of compensation for damage to a gate, a wooden table and a chair.
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord wasting his time, and defaming him. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claims
The tenancy concerned a boarding house tenancy from 25 May 2023 until 25 August 2023.
The landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant drove his car into the aluminium gate on the property and caused damage. The landlord provided photographs of the gate that show a tear in the aluminium at the top corner nearest the hinge. There appears to be no other damage on the gate. The landlord has no direct evidence of the tenant causing the damage but he draws his conclusion from the fact that there were only two cars parked on the property, the tenant’s and his own, and he says he didn’t do the damage. The landlord provided two photographs of two very small scratches on a part of a silver car which he says belongs to the tenant.
The tenant denied causing the damage to the gate in anyway. He provided photographs that show his car to be in a completely undamaged state. He described his car as “shiny” and I would agree with him; his car appears in the photographs to be in excellent condition. The tenant says he took the photographs after he was confronted by the landlord about the damage, and he realised the landlord would be making an application to the Tribunal. The tenant pointed out the photographs are date stamped 19 August 2023 and 20 August 2023 which he says was when the landlord spoke to him about the damage.
The parties also made submissions regarding the level of the tenant’s driver license and insurance which I do not consider to be relevant to my determining this matter.
What I consider pivotal in my determination that the landlord has not proved his case, is that he has no primary or corroborating evidence that the tenant caused the damage rather than anyone else. The landlord did not witness the damage himself, photographs of the tenant’s car indicate to me that the tenant’s car was not involved in damaging the gate, and there are no other witnesses.
Against this, I found the tenant to be believable and consistent in his giving evidence.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord also claimed for damage to a wooden table which he said would cost $700.00 - $800.00 to replace, and a chair which he said he replaced with a purchase from a flea market for $40.00 - $50.00. The landlord provided photographs of the table upturned in the dining room that the tenant shared with another boarder. The landlord stated that he had fixed the table himself with screws and a metal plate and it was still usable.
The tenant stated that he did not damage the table himself. He described an occasion when his fellow boarder had had an argument with a landlord and been “beaten up”. When the fellow boarder came downstairs, he had been angry and overturned the table. The tenant had then taken his fellow boarder to the hospital.
As to the chair, the tenant stated that the chair had been upstairs, where he never went, and he knew nothing about either the chair or how it was damaged.
When asked to comment on this, the landlord stated that he did not know what had gone on downstairs.
I note that the landlord chose not to make any comment regarding the claim of the altercation between himself and the other boarder upstairs, but chose to comment that he didn’t know what subsequently happened downstairs after the altercation.
Again, I found the tenant to be credible and his account of what happened to the table and the chair to be believable.
By his own admission, the landlord does not know which of the boarders tipped over the table.
I determine the landlord has failed to meet his burden in proving the damage caused to the table and chair was caused by the tenant. The tenant’s claims
The tenant was unable to quantify any financial loss and withdrew his claims.

Order

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord addressed the Tribunal today regarding claims of compensation for damage to a gate, a wooden table and a chair.
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord wasting his time, and defaming him. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claims
The tenancy concerned a boarding house tenancy from 25 May 2023 until 25 August 2023.
The landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant drove his car into the aluminium gate on the property and caused damage. The landlord provided photographs of the gate that show a tear in the aluminium at the top corner nearest the hinge. There appears to be no other damage on the gate. The landlord has no direct evidence of the tenant causing the damage but he draws his conclusion from the fact that there were only two cars parked on the property, the tenant’s and his own, and he says he didn’t do the damage. The landlord provided two photographs of two very small scratches on a part of a silver car which he says belongs to the tenant.
The tenant denied causing the damage to the gate in anyway. He provided photographs that show his car to be in a completely undamaged state. He described his car as “shiny” and I would agree with him; his car appears in the photographs to be in excellent condition. The tenant says he took the photographs after he was confronted by the landlord about the damage, and he realised the landlord would be making an application to the Tribunal. The tenant pointed out the photographs are date stamped 19 August 2023 and 20 August 2023 which he says was when the landlord spoke to him about the damage.
The parties also made submissions regarding the level of the tenant’s driver license and insurance which I do not consider to be relevant to my determining this matter.
What I consider pivotal in my determination that the landlord has not proved his case, is that he has no primary or corroborating evidence that the tenant caused the damage rather than anyone else. The landlord did not witness the damage himself, photographs of the tenant’s car indicate to me that the tenant’s car was not involved in damaging the gate, and there are no other witnesses.
Against this, I found the tenant to be believable and consistent in his giving evidence.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord also claimed for damage to a wooden table which he said would cost $700.00 - $800.00 to replace, and a chair which he said he replaced with a purchase from a flea market for $40.00 - $50.00. The landlord provided photographs of the table upturned in the dining room that the tenant shared with another boarder. The landlord stated that he had fixed the table himself with screws and a metal plate and it was still usable.
The tenant stated that he did not damage the table himself. He described an occasion when his fellow boarder had had an argument with a landlord and been “beaten up”. When the fellow boarder came downstairs, he had been angry and overturned the table. The tenant had then taken his fellow boarder to the hospital.
As to the chair, the tenant stated that the chair had been upstairs, where he never went, and he knew nothing about either the chair or how it was damaged.
When asked to comment on this, the landlord stated that he did not know what had gone on downstairs.
I note that the landlord chose not to make any comment regarding the claim of the altercation between himself and the other boarder upstairs, but chose to comment that he didn’t know what subsequently happened downstairs after the altercation.
Again, I found the tenant to be credible and his account of what happened to the table and the chair to be believable.
By his own admission, the landlord does not know which of the boarders tipped over the table.
I determine the landlord has failed to meet his burden in proving the damage caused to the table and chair was caused by the tenant. The tenant’s claims
The tenant was unable to quantify any financial loss and withdrew his claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019671 — Property damage at 155 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019671 — Property damage at 155 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

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