What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212711?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5212711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12063050-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212711?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5212711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12063050-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Dulcie Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212711 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Mr Singh, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 215, was called twice, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for outgoings, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee in a current tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

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

The applicant claimed $1,335.16 for water bills owing to 29 May 2025, according to a water ledger they provided. The landlord acknowledged that the outgoings claim here overlapped with a previous outgoings claim made in application 4998331, where a mediator’s order was made in relation to water bills. The landlord asked that the previous application 4998331 mediator’s order be replaced with a new order in this application.

The landlord confirmed the tenancy started on 26 October 2023. However, there were no water invoices on the ledger from the start of the tenancy on 26 October 2023, despite a payment of $60.00 showing on the ledger from the tenant on 12 December 2023. On the ledger, the first water bill entry invoice was an entry dated 12 March 2024 for a water bill for the period 29 November 2024 to 6 January 2024, which appeared to go backwards in time from November 2024 to January 2024.

The landlord explained that there was an ownership change with the property so there would be a different ledger profile in their system, and that is why there were no water bills showing on the ledger provided before 2024. However, there was no other evidence provided of the remainder of water transactions prior to the ledger provided by the landlord.

Further, whilst the landlord provided water invoices from 9 April 2024, the water invoices provided only went up to 1 April 2025, and did not cover the period claimed, which was up to 29 May 2025.

As the landlord’s water ledger was incomplete, as it did reflect all water bill transactions from the start of the tenancy and given there were no water invoices provided beyond 1 April 2025, when the landlord claimed water bills to 29 May 2025, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the outgoings claim and so dismiss this claim.

As the claim is dismissed, I do not reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for outgoings, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee in a current tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for refund of the bond.

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

Further, whilst the landlord provided water invoices from 9 April 2024, the water invoices provided only went up to 1 April 2025, and did not cover the period claimed, which was up to 29 May 2025.

As the claim is dismissed, I do not reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212711 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Dulcie Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212711 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Dulcie Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions