What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4506874 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4506874?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506874?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4506874 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4506874?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506874?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Commodore Parry Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4506874 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone and the tenant attended in person.

On 15 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, compensation, water rates, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.

On 20 May 2024, [The landlord/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that errors were made in the awarding (or not awarding) of compensation, that an error was made in considering fair wear and tear, that an error was made in determining that the tenant had suffered loss of amenities, and that an error was made in respect of dates for the repair of the roof. In addition, the landlords claim that at the hearings they were not given a sufficient opportunity to present their defence.

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 landlord/s] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The decision in relation to compensation, fair wear and tear and loss of amenity was determined taking account of the evidence that the Tribunal had before it and with the use of my judgement as to what I considered was relevant and appropriate. In addition, when awarding for loss of amenities I have looked at it from the tenant’s perspective and what impact any delay would have had on the tenant.

It appears that the landlord is not happy with that judgement and therefore the decision. In those circumstances the correct process would have been for the landlord to appeal the decision.

In relation to the dates for the roof repair, it was not clear at the hearing in relation to when the roof was repaired. There were communication issues between the landlord and the landlord’s agent. If there was an amount of time that the roof did not leak it would not have much, if any, impact on the award in the tenant’s favour given that the award was for issues with the deck, shower and front steps, as well as the roof.

The landlord claims that they were not given sufficient time to present their case at the three hearings. There has been a total of just over 10 hours of hearing time allocated for the cross applications. Both parties had an opportunity to present their cases. The actual time used by each party may not be the same as the other but that does not mean they have not been heard. In addition, evidence submitted is considered as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone and the tenant attended in person.
On 15 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, compensation, water rates, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
On 20 May 2024, [The landlord/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that errors were made in the awarding (or not awarding) of compensation, that an error was made in considering fair wear and tear, that an error was made in determining that the tenant had suffered loss of amenities, and that an error was made in respect of dates for the repair of the roof. In addition, the landlords claim that at the hearings they were not given a sufficient opportunity to present their defence.
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 landlord/s] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The decision in relation to compensation, fair wear and tear and loss of amenity was determined taking account of the evidence that the Tribunal had before it and with the use of my judgement as to what I considered was relevant and appropriate. In addition, when awarding for loss of amenities I have looked at it from the tenant’s perspective and what impact any delay would have had on the tenant.
It appears that the landlord is not happy with that judgement and therefore the decision. In those circumstances the correct process would have been for the landlord to appeal the decision.
In relation to the dates for the roof repair, it was not clear at the hearing in relation to when the roof was repaired. There were communication issues between the landlord and the landlord’s agent. If there was an amount of time that the roof did not leak it would not have much, if any, impact on the award in the tenant’s favour given that the award was for issues with the deck, shower and front steps, as well as the roof.
The landlord claims that they were not given sufficient time to present their case at the three hearings. There has been a total of just over 10 hours of hearing time allocated for the cross applications. Both parties had an opportunity to present their cases. The actual time used by each party may not be the same as the other but that does not mean they have not been heard. In addition, evidence submitted is considered as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4506874 — Rent arrears at 3 Commodore Parry Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4506874 — Rent arrears at 3 Commodore Parry Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

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