What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4509431 about?

The tribunal order states: The rehearing application filed by the landlord is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4509431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4509431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4509431 about?

The tribunal order states: The rehearing application filed by the landlord is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4509431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4509431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Henry Partington Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4509431 — Leaks

Order

TENANCY ADDRESS:9 Henry Partington Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

ORDER

The rehearing application filed by the landlord is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s Order dated 3 February 2025 will be re-issued, to the intent that the time for the parties to exercise any right of appeal in respect of the findings in that Order under s.117 RTA, should run from the date of re-issue.
The stay of proceedings is lifted.
Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is continued.

Reasons

Background

After a full rehearing on 13 January 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order dated 29 January 2025, determining the parties’ claims. The owner complains that the hearing was too long (finishing at 4:00 after a delayed start at 11:30), but the Notice of Hearing made it clear that 9:30 - 4:30 was the allocated hearing duration.
The tenant raised a concern that the Order contained an error.
On 3 February 2025 an amended Order was issued correcting what I was satisfied were manifest errors in the Order but declining to make other changes the tenant requested.
The tenant asserted that other matters that had been agreed between the parties were not reflected in the decision. As a result, I directed that there be a short teleconference, to ascertain whether the issues the tenant alleged had been agreed between she and the landlord, were in fact agreed.
It became apparent at that teleconference that the landlord did not agree with the tenant’s position on those matters, so no further change was made to the 3 February Order.
The landlord then filed an application for re-hearing. The landlord is aggrieved at the Tribunal’s findings and that: a. changes were made to the 29 January Order without hearing from the landlord; b. only very short notice had been given for the phone teleconference; c. an interpreter was not provided for the phone teleconference.
I was not aware of the short notice given to the landlord of the phone teleconference. I was made aware that the landlord preferred that an interpreter be provided. However, it quickly became clear that the landlord did not agree with the tenant’s claim that agreed issues had been omitted from the Order, that the Order should not be further amended and that there was no resulting prejudice to the landlord.
This hearing considered the landlord’s application for a re-hearing. During the hearing it became apparent that the landlord disagrees with the findings in the 29 January Order and wishes it reheard. The landlord does not pursue a rehearing just in respect of the corrections made to that Order, in the 3 February Order. Findings
The Tribunal can recall and correct obvious errors in its’ decisions. The 3 February Order did that and in the addendum identified the errors that were being corrected. Nevertheless, I understand the landlord’s concern about the changes being made without first hearing from it. As noted though, it is not the corrections made to the 29 January Order but that Order itself, that the landlord wants reheard.
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.
In support of its application for re-hearing, the landlord has included a statement from a neighbour stating that during the time the property was tenanted, it was an eye sore for the rest of the street for a number of reasons and that the tenant appeared to hold racist views. It does not appear from the statement that the neighbour has direct knowledge of the specific matters relevant to determination of the parties’ claims and importantly, there is no reason the neighbour could not have been called as a witness at the hearing.
A short note from a plumber was also provided, relating to what is said to be the tenant’s incorrect use of a tap at the premises. The causes of leaking at the premises have been extensively covered in Tribunal Orders and the note provided does not add significantly to the evidence on the matter. Again, no reason is given as to why, if relevant, that evidence was not presented at the hearing.
The balance of the material provided in support of the rehearing application explains the reasons for the owner’s dissatisfaction with the outcome and the process, but is not new evidence.
During this hearing significant time was spent hearing the owner’s assertion that no evidence was provided justifying an award of compensation to the tenant for replacement of her microwave. That is somewhat surprising given that the Order dismissed that part of the tenant’s claim.
Clearly the owners strongly disagree with some of the findings made by the Tribunal and do not feel fairly treated. I acknowledge that will have been contributed to by their having received the amended Order without prior notice.
I am nevertheless satisfied that the findings made by the Tribunal were arrived at after full opportunity had been given to both parties to present their positions and evidence in support of their positions. After previous hearings, both parties were very well aware of the claims and the basis for them.
I am not persuaded that the additional material provided in support of the landlord’s rehearing application could not have been provided for the hearing or is of such determinative value that it would be unjust not to grant a rehearing to allow it to be considered.
The parties are entitled to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings but that is appropriately a matter for appeal rather than by way of another rehearing.
In the circumstances of this case, it seems appropriate to keep the parties’ rights of appeal open in the manner provided in Order 2.

Order

TENANCY ADDRESS:9 Henry Partington Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

ORDER

The rehearing application filed by the landlord is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s Order dated 3 February 2025 will be re-issued, to the intent that the time for the parties to exercise any right of appeal in respect of the findings in that Order under s.117 RTA, should run from the date of re-issue.
The stay of proceedings is lifted.
Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details is continued.

Reasons

Background

After a full rehearing on 13 January 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order dated 29 January 2025, determining the parties’ claims. The owner complains that the hearing was too long (finishing at 4:00 after a delayed start at 11:30), but the Notice of Hearing made it clear that 9:30 - 4:30 was the allocated hearing duration.
The tenant raised a concern that the Order contained an error.
On 3 February 2025 an amended Order was issued correcting what I was satisfied were manifest errors in the Order but declining to make other changes the tenant requested.
The tenant asserted that other matters that had been agreed between the parties were not reflected in the decision. As a result, I directed that there be a short teleconference, to ascertain whether the issues the tenant alleged had been agreed between she and the landlord, were in fact agreed.
It became apparent at that teleconference that the landlord did not agree with the tenant’s position on those matters, so no further change was made to the 3 February Order.
The landlord then filed an application for re-hearing. The landlord is aggrieved at the Tribunal’s findings and that: a. changes were made to the 29 January Order without hearing from the landlord; b. only very short notice had been given for the phone teleconference; c. an interpreter was not provided for the phone teleconference.
I was not aware of the short notice given to the landlord of the phone teleconference. I was made aware that the landlord preferred that an interpreter be provided. However, it quickly became clear that the landlord did not agree with the tenant’s claim that agreed issues had been omitted from the Order, that the Order should not be further amended and that there was no resulting prejudice to the landlord.
This hearing considered the landlord’s application for a re-hearing. During the hearing it became apparent that the landlord disagrees with the findings in the 29 January Order and wishes it reheard. The landlord does not pursue a rehearing just in respect of the corrections made to that Order, in the 3 February Order. Findings
The Tribunal can recall and correct obvious errors in its’ decisions. The 3 February Order did that and in the addendum identified the errors that were being corrected. Nevertheless, I understand the landlord’s concern about the changes being made without first hearing from it. As noted though, it is not the corrections made to the 29 January Order but that Order itself, that the landlord wants reheard.
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.
In support of its application for re-hearing, the landlord has included a statement from a neighbour stating that during the time the property was tenanted, it was an eye sore for the rest of the street for a number of reasons and that the tenant appeared to hold racist views. It does not appear from the statement that the neighbour has direct knowledge of the specific matters relevant to determination of the parties’ claims and importantly, there is no reason the neighbour could not have been called as a witness at the hearing.
A short note from a plumber was also provided, relating to what is said to be the tenant’s incorrect use of a tap at the premises. The causes of leaking at the premises have been extensively covered in Tribunal Orders and the note provided does not add significantly to the evidence on the matter. Again, no reason is given as to why, if relevant, that evidence was not presented at the hearing.
The balance of the material provided in support of the rehearing application explains the reasons for the owner’s dissatisfaction with the outcome and the process, but is not new evidence.
During this hearing significant time was spent hearing the owner’s assertion that no evidence was provided justifying an award of compensation to the tenant for replacement of her microwave. That is somewhat surprising given that the Order dismissed that part of the tenant’s claim.
Clearly the owners strongly disagree with some of the findings made by the Tribunal and do not feel fairly treated. I acknowledge that will have been contributed to by their having received the amended Order without prior notice.
I am nevertheless satisfied that the findings made by the Tribunal were arrived at after full opportunity had been given to both parties to present their positions and evidence in support of their positions. After previous hearings, both parties were very well aware of the claims and the basis for them.
I am not persuaded that the additional material provided in support of the landlord’s rehearing application could not have been provided for the hearing or is of such determinative value that it would be unjust not to grant a rehearing to allow it to be considered.
The parties are entitled to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings but that is appropriately a matter for appeal rather than by way of another rehearing.
In the circumstances of this case, it seems appropriate to keep the parties’ rights of appeal open in the manner provided in Order 2.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4509431 — Leaks at 9 Henry Partington Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4509431 — Leaks at 9 Henry Partington Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions