What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475222?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4475222?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475222?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9422650-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475222?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4475222?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475222?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9422650-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4475222 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 4 May 2023, the Tribunal made an Order dismissing the Tenant’s application for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 12 May 2023, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) The Landlord never filed their evidence on the Portal or provided this to the Tenant; b) Most of the decision was based on the ‘Builders Report’ filed by the Landlord and the Landlord has trade relations with the Builders. The evidence provided by the Tenants such as the photographs, Independent Healthy Homes Assessment reports and email correspondences was completely ignored; c) The Tenant’s witness was never given a chance to speak; d) The Landlord admitted to not fixing certain items on the property yet the Tribunal never directed the Landlord to repair these.
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?

For the following reasons the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tenant submitted that the Landlord failed to provide their evidence prior to the hearing. The Landlord submitted at the hearing that they were unable to file their documents prior to the hearing via the Tenancy Services portal. They were directed by Tenancy Services to provide three copies of their evidence at the hearing on the day. The Tenant was given a copy of everything the Landlord filed at the hearing. The Landlord specifically prepared three copies after being directed by Tenancy services to do so. This included the Builders report, Inspectors report and Builders notes.
Section 96 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, allows the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. A party must have knowledge of the substance of the other parties case and the Adjudicator must ensure there is a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute. It was held in the case of Lwee v Tenancy Tribunal [2013] NZHC 1602, that parties are not required to file evidence and submissions in advance. All that is required is that the parties have a general understanding of the other parties case.
The Tenant in this case, would have had a general understanding of the Landlords case because the parties dispute initiated the filing of the Tenants application to the Tribunal.
The Tenant submitted their evidence was disregarded. The Tribunal considered all of the evidence from both parties but not all of it was referred to in the Orders because this would create unnecessarily lengthy and protracted Orders. An analysis of each piece of evidence is not undertaken for the sake of brevity. Only the evidence that was relied upon or the most persuasive in determining the decision was referred to.
The Tenant submitted the Builders Report from the Landlord was prepared by the Builders who had a trade relationship with the Landlord. Regardless of the relationship between the Landlord and Builder, the Landlord is entitled to file this evidence and it is at the discretion of the Tribunal as to how much weight they place on this evidence.
The Tenant submitted that they never denied access for the Landlords to undertake the repairs, the date of the Healthy Homes Assessment was on 12 January 2023 not the 25 January 2023 and they reiterated the issues with the fire alarms. The raising of these issues are attempts by the Tenant to have these matters reheard because he did not agree with the decision. A rehearing is not granted however on the grounds that a party is not happy with the decision or to provide a second opportunity to be heard.
The Tenant’s witness was asked to wait outside the court room at the start of the hearing until they were required. The Tenant never asked to bring the witness into the hearing when the issue of the Tenants’ stay at their house was raised or at any time of the hearing. The Tenant submitted the witness would have substantiated that the Tenants had to stay at the witnesses house for a week because they were unable to use the bathroom. In considering this submission, the evidence would not have changed the decision of the Tribunal. It is accepted that the Tenants stayed at the witnesses house for one week. The issue is whether the damage to the bathroom was to such an extent that they had to move out or whether they could have continued to use it but chose to move out for a week instead. There was no indication that the witness had the expertise to comment on the extent of the damage in the bathroom.
The Tenant submitted that the Tribunal did not direct some repairs to be made which the Landlord admitted to not undertaking at the hearing. The Tribunal is not required to direct repairs if no application for a work order has been made. It is the parties who must make an application for this rather than the Tribunal to directing these Orders on its own account.
The Tenant filed their request for a rehearing more than five working days after the hearing and did not provide an explanation for filing out of time.
For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 4 May 2023, the Tribunal made an Order dismissing the Tenant’s application for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 12 May 2023, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) The Landlord never filed their evidence on the Portal or provided this to the Tenant; b) Most of the decision was based on the ‘Builders Report’ filed by the Landlord and the Landlord has trade relations with the Builders. The evidence provided by the Tenants such as the photographs, Independent Healthy Homes Assessment reports and email correspondences was completely ignored; c) The Tenant’s witness was never given a chance to speak; d) The Landlord admitted to not fixing certain items on the property yet the Tribunal never directed the Landlord to repair these.
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?

For the following reasons the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tenant submitted that the Landlord failed to provide their evidence prior to the hearing. The Landlord submitted at the hearing that they were unable to file their documents prior to the hearing via the Tenancy Services portal. They were directed by Tenancy Services to provide three copies of their evidence at the hearing on the day. The Tenant was given a copy of everything the Landlord filed at the hearing. The Landlord specifically prepared three copies after being directed by Tenancy services to do so. This included the Builders report, Inspectors report and Builders notes.
Section 96 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, allows the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. A party must have knowledge of the substance of the other parties case and the Adjudicator must ensure there is a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute. It was held in the case of Lwee v Tenancy Tribunal [2013] NZHC 1602, that parties are not required to file evidence and submissions in advance. All that is required is that the parties have a general understanding of the other parties case.
The Tenant in this case, would have had a general understanding of the Landlords case because the parties dispute initiated the filing of the Tenants application to the Tribunal.
The Tenant submitted their evidence was disregarded. The Tribunal considered all of the evidence from both parties but not all of it was referred to in the Orders because this would create unnecessarily lengthy and protracted Orders. An analysis of each piece of evidence is not undertaken for the sake of brevity. Only the evidence that was relied upon or the most persuasive in determining the decision was referred to.
The Tenant submitted the Builders Report from the Landlord was prepared by the Builders who had a trade relationship with the Landlord. Regardless of the relationship between the Landlord and Builder, the Landlord is entitled to file this evidence and it is at the discretion of the Tribunal as to how much weight they place on this evidence.
The Tenant submitted that they never denied access for the Landlords to undertake the repairs, the date of the Healthy Homes Assessment was on 12 January 2023 not the 25 January 2023 and they reiterated the issues with the fire alarms. The raising of these issues are attempts by the Tenant to have these matters reheard because he did not agree with the decision. A rehearing is not granted however on the grounds that a party is not happy with the decision or to provide a second opportunity to be heard.
The Tenant’s witness was asked to wait outside the court room at the start of the hearing until they were required. The Tenant never asked to bring the witness into the hearing when the issue of the Tenants’ stay at their house was raised or at any time of the hearing. The Tenant submitted the witness would have substantiated that the Tenants had to stay at the witnesses house for a week because they were unable to use the bathroom. In considering this submission, the evidence would not have changed the decision of the Tribunal. It is accepted that the Tenants stayed at the witnesses house for one week. The issue is whether the damage to the bathroom was to such an extent that they had to move out or whether they could have continued to use it but chose to move out for a week instead. There was no indication that the witness had the expertise to comment on the extent of the damage in the bathroom.
The Tenant submitted that the Tribunal did not direct some repairs to be made which the Landlord admitted to not undertaking at the hearing. The Tribunal is not required to direct repairs if no application for a work order has been made. It is the parties who must make an application for this rather than the Tribunal to directing these Orders on its own account.
The Tenant filed their request for a rehearing more than five working days after the hearing and did not provide an explanation for filing out of time.
For these reasons, the Tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475222 — Healthy homes at 13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475222 — Healthy homes at 13A Bartells Drive, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions