What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244632?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the issues raised in the

How much money was awarded in case 5244632?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244632?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244632?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12120513-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244632?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the issues raised in the

How much money was awarded in case 5244632?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244632?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244632?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12120513-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244632 — Property damage

Order

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the issues raised in the application.
The application for orders against the landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Mr Campbell represented Kāinga-Ora.
The hearing was scheduled so the Tribunal could determine whether it had jurisdiction to consider the issues raised. Background
The tenancy started in October 2014.
In December 2021 and January 2022 there were 3 separate incidents when the tenant’s neighbours caused damage to her property and assaulted her and her son and damaged her car beyond repair.
The assaults and the damage arose following a false allegation made by the neighbours against the tenant’s son.
The assaults and the damage were reported to the Police. The tenant also reported them to Kāinga-Ora.
About 7 months later the neighbours moved from their tenancy. Kāinga-Ora offered the tenant the opportunity to relocate to another tenancy, but she decided against that, as the neighbours had moved. Also, she was limited in where she could move to because she no longer had a car.
Today, the tenant described the issues she wanted the Tribunal to address. They were: •She wants to be transferred to a new property because she remains traumatised by what occurred in 2021 and 2022. •She wants the amount deducted from her benefit to pay an amount ordered against her in a previous Tribunal hearing to be reduced. •She disagreed that she was liable to pay for the damage to her premises that she has been ordered to pay. •She felt that Kāinga-Ora did not assist her at the time of the assaults. •She felt discriminated against.
I explained to the parties that the hearing today was for the Tribunal to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matters raised. Discussion
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the matters raised by the tenant.
The Tribunal it not a forum for general complaint. It can only make orders as provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal cannot order Kāinga-Ora or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) which assesses eligibility for social housing to shift the tenant to new premises. Mr Campbell said he would initiate a process so the tenant could be considered for a transfer. That would require an assessment by MSD.
The Tribunal cannot order Kāinga-Ora to reduce the instalment payment of the amount the tenant was ordered to pay in an earlier Tribunal hearing. Mr Campbell said he would initiate a referral to the tenant’s housing manager to see if the payment can be reduced.
The Tribunal cannot interfere with an order previously made because the tenant does not agree with the outcome. The tenant said she never received a phone call to participate in the hearing. That might be a ground to apply for a rehearing. She can take advice from Tenancy Services if she wants to explore that option.
Discrimination as referred to in the RTA is different from discrimination as understood in the lay or general sense. Discrimination in section 12 RTA means: Discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993;
The discrimination the tenant described arose from a telephone conversation with one of the landlord’s staff and concerned the allegation against her son.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address that kind of discrimination as it does not fall under the section 12 RTA definition. The appropriate step is a complaint under the process Kāinga-Ora has in place.
The tenant’s opinion that Kāinga-Ora did not do enough at the time of the assault and damages incidents is also not something the Tribunal can remedy. Kāinga-Ora offered to transfer the tenant to another tenancy, but she chose not to move as the neighbouring tenants had moved. Had those tenants not moved it is probable that Kāinga-Ora would have terminated their tenancy; at it happened that was not required. Result
Because the matters the tenant has raised concern general complaints rather than breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address the issues. There are no orders it could make. The allegation that Kāinga-Ora failed to act following the assault and damage incidents is not made out.
The Tribunal declines jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought an order for name suppression. As the application is unsuccessful, the criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the issues raised in the application.
The application for orders against the landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Mr Campbell represented Kāinga-Ora.
The hearing was scheduled so the Tribunal could determine whether it had jurisdiction to consider the issues raised. Background
The tenancy started in October 2014.
In December 2021 and January 2022 there were 3 separate incidents when the tenant’s neighbours caused damage to her property and assaulted her and her son and damaged her car beyond repair.
The assaults and the damage arose following a false allegation made by the neighbours against the tenant’s son.
The assaults and the damage were reported to the Police. The tenant also reported them to Kāinga-Ora.
About 7 months later the neighbours moved from their tenancy. Kāinga-Ora offered the tenant the opportunity to relocate to another tenancy, but she decided against that, as the neighbours had moved. Also, she was limited in where she could move to because she no longer had a car.
Today, the tenant described the issues she wanted the Tribunal to address. They were: •She wants to be transferred to a new property because she remains traumatised by what occurred in 2021 and 2022. •She wants the amount deducted from her benefit to pay an amount ordered against her in a previous Tribunal hearing to be reduced. •She disagreed that she was liable to pay for the damage to her premises that she has been ordered to pay. •She felt that Kāinga-Ora did not assist her at the time of the assaults. •She felt discriminated against.
I explained to the parties that the hearing today was for the Tribunal to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matters raised. Discussion
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider most of the matters raised by the tenant.
The Tribunal it not a forum for general complaint. It can only make orders as provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal cannot order Kāinga-Ora or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) which assesses eligibility for social housing to shift the tenant to new premises. Mr Campbell said he would initiate a process so the tenant could be considered for a transfer. That would require an assessment by MSD.
The Tribunal cannot order Kāinga-Ora to reduce the instalment payment of the amount the tenant was ordered to pay in an earlier Tribunal hearing. Mr Campbell said he would initiate a referral to the tenant’s housing manager to see if the payment can be reduced.
The Tribunal cannot interfere with an order previously made because the tenant does not agree with the outcome. The tenant said she never received a phone call to participate in the hearing. That might be a ground to apply for a rehearing. She can take advice from Tenancy Services if she wants to explore that option.
Discrimination as referred to in the RTA is different from discrimination as understood in the lay or general sense. Discrimination in section 12 RTA means: Discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993;
The discrimination the tenant described arose from a telephone conversation with one of the landlord’s staff and concerned the allegation against her son.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address that kind of discrimination as it does not fall under the section 12 RTA definition. The appropriate step is a complaint under the process Kāinga-Ora has in place.
The tenant’s opinion that Kāinga-Ora did not do enough at the time of the assault and damages incidents is also not something the Tribunal can remedy. Kāinga-Ora offered to transfer the tenant to another tenancy, but she chose not to move as the neighbouring tenants had moved. Had those tenants not moved it is probable that Kāinga-Ora would have terminated their tenancy; at it happened that was not required. Result
Because the matters the tenant has raised concern general complaints rather than breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address the issues. There are no orders it could make. The allegation that Kāinga-Ora failed to act following the assault and damage incidents is not made out.
The Tribunal declines jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought an order for name suppression. As the application is unsuccessful, the criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244632 — Property damage at 41A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244632 — Property damage at 41A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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