What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287265?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5287265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287265?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287265?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5287265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287265?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 5c, 169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287265 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

The Respondent attended the hearing in person. The Applicant did not appear, however her representative, her Aunty appeared on her behalf. During the course of the hearing, the representative’s phone rang and she advised that the Applicant was on the telephone. The representative informed the Applicant that the Tribunal would attempt to contact her directly. The Tribunal immediately made two attempts to contact the Applicant using the provided telephone number; both calls went unanswered.

The Applicant bears the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities.

The Applicant sought exemplary damages.

The Respondent denied the existence of a tenancy agreement.

Was there a Tenancy Agreement?

The Tribunal must firstly determine whether a tenancy agreement existed before it can consider any claim for exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Respondent submitted that no tenancy agreement had been entered into. The Applicant initially approached them seeking accommodation but failed to meet the necessary criteria. The Applicant requested to store her belongings in a room and advised that she would immediately attend to completing the required documentation. The Applicant allegedly pleaded with the Respondent, who, feeling sympathetic, allowed her temporary access to the room and provided her with a key. The arrangement was on the understanding that a tenancy agreement would be formalised once the relevant documentation was provided.

The Respondent stated that the Applicant took possession of the room however allowed her boyfriend in. This was not disclosed to the Respondents. The room in question was located in a part of the boarding house designated for vulnerable women only, and the presence of the Applicant’s boyfriend allegedly caused distress to other occupants. The Applicant was subsequently asked to vacate the premises by security.

The Respondent also confirmed that although a WINZ redirection had been arranged, the funds received were refunded. The Respondent maintained that no tenancy agreement was ever concluded or consented to.

The Applicant submitted that a tenancy agreement did exist. She stated that she had arranged a WINZ redirection of rent and had placed personal belongings in the room. She further submitted that the Respondent had asked her to obtain a mop and bucket, which she did and subsequently left in the room. She argued that these actions amounted to the formation of a tenancy agreement. The Applicant’s representative also submitted that an employee of the premises expressed sympathy for the Applicant and stated that he felt the Respondents were treating people unfairly.

After considering the evidence, I find that there was no tenancy agreement between the parties. The Respondent consistently stated that they did not agree to entering into a tenancy. There was no written tenancy agreement, and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the essential terms of a tenancy had been agreed upon. The arrangement described by the Respondent was, at most, an informal and conditional grant of temporary access to the room.

Furthermore, the Applicant did not attend the hearing or provide direct oral evidence to support her claim even though she had an opportunity to. Her representative was not present during the relevant interactions between the parties and was unable to give first-hand evidence of the events.

As there is no evidence to establish that a tenancy agreement existed, the Applicant is not entitled to seek exemplary damages.

The claim is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

Reasons

The Respondent attended the hearing in person. The Applicant did not appear, however her representative, her Aunty appeared on her behalf. During the course of the hearing, the representative’s phone rang and she advised that the Applicant was on the telephone. The representative informed the Applicant that the Tribunal would attempt to contact her directly. The Tribunal immediately made two attempts to contact the Applicant using the provided telephone number; both calls went unanswered.
The Applicant bears the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities.
The Applicant sought exemplary damages.
The Respondent denied the existence of a tenancy agreement.

Was there a Tenancy Agreement?

The Tribunal must firstly determine whether a tenancy agreement existed before it can consider any claim for exemplary damages under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Respondent submitted that no tenancy agreement had been entered into. The Applicant initially approached them seeking accommodation but failed to meet the necessary criteria. The Applicant requested to store her belongings in a room and advised that she would immediately attend to completing the required documentation. The Applicant allegedly pleaded with the Respondent, who, feeling sympathetic, allowed her temporary access to the room and provided her with a key. The arrangement was on the understanding that a tenancy agreement would be formalised once the relevant documentation was provided.
The Respondent stated that the Applicant took possession of the room however allowed her boyfriend in. This was not disclosed to the Respondents. The room in question was located in a part of the boarding house designated for vulnerable women only, and the presence of the Applicant’s boyfriend allegedly caused distress to other occupants. The Applicant was subsequently asked to vacate the premises by security.
The Respondent also confirmed that although a WINZ redirection had been arranged, the funds received were refunded. The Respondent maintained that no tenancy agreement was ever concluded or consented to.
The Applicant submitted that a tenancy agreement did exist. She stated that she had arranged a WINZ redirection of rent and had placed personal belongings in the room. She further submitted that the Respondent had asked her to obtain a mop and bucket, which she did and subsequently left in the room. She argued that these actions amounted to the formation of a tenancy agreement. The Applicant’s representative also submitted that an employee of the premises expressed sympathy for the Applicant and stated that he felt the Respondents were treating people unfairly.
After considering the evidence, I find that there was no tenancy agreement between the parties. The Respondent consistently stated that they did not agree to entering into a tenancy. There was no written tenancy agreement, and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the essential terms of a tenancy had been agreed upon. The arrangement described by the Respondent was, at most, an informal and conditional grant of temporary access to the room.
Furthermore, the Applicant did not attend the hearing or provide direct oral evidence to support her claim even though she had an opportunity to. Her representative was not present during the relevant interactions between the parties and was unable to give first-hand evidence of the events.
As there is no evidence to establish that a tenancy agreement existed, the Applicant is not entitled to seek exemplary damages.
The claim is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287265 — Exemplary damages at Room 5c, 169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287265 — Exemplary damages at Room 5c, 169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a Tenancy Agreement?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a Tenancy Agreement?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions