What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4341971 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4341971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4341971?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4341971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8403378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4341971 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4341971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4341971?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4341971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8403378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4341971 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference. The tenant was assisted by [The tenant's representative] and the landlord was represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid.
On 6 October 2022 the Tribunal issued work orders requiring the landlord to undertake remedial work, and monetary orders against both parties.
On 12 October 2022, the tenant applied for a rehearing on a number of grounds. The matter was therefore set down for consideration as to whether or not a rehearing should be granted. That hearing took place on 22 November 2022.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In short, that is because [The tenant's representative] confirmed on behalf of the tenant that she did not seek to challenge the original decision; rather she sought clarity of that decision.
Clearly, this is not a ground for rehearing and so that application must be dismissed.
However, for the benefit of the parties I record as follows. a. Order number 2 of the original decision was an award of “approximately two weeks rent”. It was an approximation only, not intended to be a precise figure. b. Order number 3 of the original decision did not include the sink. That is because the Tribunal considered that a proper assessment of the condition of the sink could only be made once it had been removed. Refer paras 51- 54 of that decision. It was intended to include the taps which were clearly part of the “rotting” behind the sink. c. Order number 3 of the original decision did not specifically include the vinyl floor in the dining area which is a connected part of the kitchen. I confirm it was intended to include this area as it is all one connected area. Reference to the living area was reference to a separate room (which I mistakenly thought was also vinyl).
Given that there has been a stay granted pending this decision, the deadline to complete the works is now 23 December 2022.
The stay is now lifted. J R Smith 30 November 2022

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference. The tenant was assisted by [The tenant's representative] and the landlord was represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid.

On 6 October 2022 the Tribunal issued work orders requiring the landlord to undertake remedial work, and monetary orders against both parties.

On 12 October 2022, the tenant applied for a rehearing on a number of grounds. The matter was therefore set down for consideration as to whether or not a rehearing should be granted. That hearing took place on 22 November 2022.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

In short, that is because [The tenant's representative] confirmed on behalf of the tenant that she did not seek to challenge the original decision; rather she sought clarity of that decision.

Clearly, this is not a ground for rehearing and so that application must be dismissed.

However, for the benefit of the parties I record as follows. a. Order number 2 of the original decision was an award of “approximately two weeks rent”. It was an approximation only, not intended to be a precise figure. b. Order number 3 of the original decision did not include the sink. That is because the Tribunal considered that a proper assessment of the condition of the sink could only be made once it had been removed. Refer paras 51- 54 of that decision. It was intended to include the taps which were clearly part of the “rotting” behind the sink. c. Order number 3 of the original decision did not specifically include the vinyl floor in the dining area which is a connected part of the kitchen. I confirm it was intended to include this area as it is all one connected area. Reference to the living area was reference to a separate room (which I mistakenly thought was also vinyl).

Given that there has been a stay granted pending this decision, the deadline to complete the works is now 23 December 2022.

The stay is now lifted. J R Smith 30 November 2022

Tenancy Tribunal case 4341971 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4341971 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Corsair Crescent, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions