What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4553970?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4553970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553970?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9639494-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4553970?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4553970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553970?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9639494-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

121 Fitzgerald Road, Drury, RD 1, Auckland 2577 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4553970 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone on 14 November 2023.
On 5 October 2023 the Tribunal made an order splitting the bond. The issue at the hearing related to the supply of water to the premises. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenants for issues with the supply of water from a nearby bore.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the water supply issues were not as extensive as the Tribunal had indicated. An email from the owner of the bore dated 11 October 2023 was provided. The email, responding to a query from the landlord on 8 October 2023, stated that there were occasional power cuts to the bore pump, and limited power outages during the period in question, but no more than usual. There was also standard maintenance. The email said that in early 2023 extreme weather events required electrical work, but outside of this period the bore was functional.
Section 105(1) of the 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, and 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 – “something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown”, see Wellington City Council v McMillan (DC Wellington, 7 June 2002, MA 70/02 & TT 97/02, Judge Tuohy) at paragraph 19.
The District Court has confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506).

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord said they did not realise that part of the tenant’s case would be that there was an issue with the supply of water to the property. The issue raised with the landlord concerned the water quality.
The tenant’s written submissions, filed before the hearing on 28 September 2023, clearly raised issues about interruptions to the water supply as well as quality issues. The tenants served a notice to remedy dated 1 November 2022 which required the landlord to address issues with the continuity of water supply as well as quality concerns. I consider that the evidence from the owner of the bore is not fresh, in the sense that it could with reasonable diligence have been provided before the Tribunal made its determination.
I also consider the email is not especially cogent. It indicates that there were power cuts and standard maintenance affecting the operation of the bore pump but does not quantify what this meant in terms of the length of outages. A “limited number of power outages” might still mean the property did not have an adequate supply of safe drinking water, depending on the timescales involved. The Tribunal had written and oral evidence from the tenants about the water supply issues they faced. They were given an access code so they could re-set the bore pump when it tripped due to power cuts, which suggests the issue was more frequent. While more detailed information about the extent of outages and their effects would always be welcome, the tenants gave sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to form a general impression.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there has or may have been a miscarriage of justice.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone on 14 November 2023.
On 5 October 2023 the Tribunal made an order splitting the bond. The issue at the hearing related to the supply of water to the premises. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenants for issues with the supply of water from a nearby bore.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the water supply issues were not as extensive as the Tribunal had indicated. An email from the owner of the bore dated 11 October 2023 was provided. The email, responding to a query from the landlord on 8 October 2023, stated that there were occasional power cuts to the bore pump, and limited power outages during the period in question, but no more than usual. There was also standard maintenance. The email said that in early 2023 extreme weather events required electrical work, but outside of this period the bore was functional.
Section 105(1) of the 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, and 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 – “something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown”, see Wellington City Council v McMillan (DC Wellington, 7 June 2002, MA 70/02 & TT 97/02, Judge Tuohy) at paragraph 19.
The District Court has confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506).

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord said they did not realise that part of the tenant’s case would be that there was an issue with the supply of water to the property. The issue raised with the landlord concerned the water quality.
The tenant’s written submissions, filed before the hearing on 28 September 2023, clearly raised issues about interruptions to the water supply as well as quality issues. The tenants served a notice to remedy dated 1 November 2022 which required the landlord to address issues with the continuity of water supply as well as quality concerns. I consider that the evidence from the owner of the bore is not fresh, in the sense that it could with reasonable diligence have been provided before the Tribunal made its determination.
I also consider the email is not especially cogent. It indicates that there were power cuts and standard maintenance affecting the operation of the bore pump but does not quantify what this meant in terms of the length of outages. A “limited number of power outages” might still mean the property did not have an adequate supply of safe drinking water, depending on the timescales involved. The Tribunal had written and oral evidence from the tenants about the water supply issues they faced. They were given an access code so they could re-set the bore pump when it tripped due to power cuts, which suggests the issue was more frequent. While more detailed information about the extent of outages and their effects would always be welcome, the tenants gave sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to form a general impression.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there has or may have been a miscarriage of justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553970 — Tenancy dispute at 121 Fitzgerald Road, Drury, RD 1, Auckland 2577

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553970 — Tenancy dispute at 121 Fitzgerald Road, Drury, RD 1, Auckland 2577

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