How much money was awarded in case 4589009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4589009?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4589009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9994397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4589009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4589009?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4589009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9994397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4589009 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4589009 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

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. The stay of proceedings granted on 4 December 2023 is lifted.

[The tenant/s] is ordered to allow access to Kāinga Ora-Homes And Communities and/or the landlord’s agents and contractors to the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed] for an inspection to scope the work required in relation to Healthy Homes Standards upon service of the relevant notice by the landlord as per sections 48(2)(cb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is to advise [The tenant/s] of who will be attending the inspection which is to be included in the above relevant notice.

Reasons

On 26 October 2023, the Tribunal made the following 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 tenant, [The tenant/s], is directed to allow access to the landlord, Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities and/or the landlord’s agents and contractors to the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed] on Thursday 16 November 2023 at 11am for an inspection to scope the work required to bring the home up to Healthy Homes standards upon service of the relevant notice by the landlord under sections 48(2)(cb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is to advise [The tenant/s] of who will be attending the inspection which is to be included in the above relevant notice.

On 13 November 2023, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on grounds that a miscarriage of justice has occurred as the order contains factual inaccuracies (in particular, paragraph 7 of the order) and healthy homes issues.

A hearing was held on 18 January 2024 by teleconference to consider [The tenant/s] rehearing application. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing. The landlord was contacted on the contact number provided in the application but without success. As I was satisfied there had been adequate notice of the hearing, I proceeded with the hearing in the landlord’s absence.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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, to give them a second opportunity to present their case, or as alternative to an appeal.

In Wellington City Council v McMillan (MA 70/02, DC Wellington, 17 June 2002) the Court considered the application of section 105(1) and stated: “[19] In my view, however the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First, the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. This implies an obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend against the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”

Section 85(1) RTA requires the Tribunal to deal with claims in a manner that is "fair and expeditious" (emphasis added). Section 96 RTA confirms that it is for the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I have given careful consideration to all matters raised by [The tenant/s]. For the following reasons [The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.

In terms of “healthy homes issues”, [The tenant/s] maintains the premises is in a healthy living condition which is supported by the pre-inspection before she moved in, inspections carried out over her tenancy and repairs undertaken at the premises. She noted that the person from Kāinga Ora who contacted her for an inspection is a different person every year and that Kāinga Ora appoints a different person to do the inspection each year. She suggested that if one person was in charge of the premises, this would help to have a whole picture of the premises. She further noted that arrangements by Kāinga Ora of more frequent home visits and carrying out visits without prior notice interferes with a tenant’s peace and enjoyment of the premises, and that using a locksmith to access the premises for a non-emergency inspection is illegal. However, these are not grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord is entitled to enter the inside of the premises in an emergency, with the consent of the tenant, or after the landlord has given the correct written notice for one of the purposes allowed in section 48 of the RTA. Those purposes include inspections, repairs, testing for contaminants, smoke alarms and Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant does not have to be present when the landlord enters.

It is clear that the landlord has the legal right to enter the premises for the purpose of scoping the work required to bring the premises up to Healthy Homes Standards. It follows that Kāinga Ora’s request for an order allowing entry to the premises is entirely reasonable and also a necessity so that the landlord and the owners can ensure that they meet their obligations to the tenant under the RTA in relation the Healthy Homes Standards. [The tenant/s] cannot use the rehearing application process to stop the landlord from exercising its rights to inspect the premises for this purpose.

[The tenant/s] has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing. A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what [The tenant/s] is seeking. [The tenant/s] is not entitled to an opportunity to re-litigate the matter or a second chance to present her case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision.

I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.

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. The stay of proceedings granted on 4 December 2023 is lifted.

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is to advise [The tenant/s] of who will be attending the inspection which is to be included in the above relevant notice.

Reasons

On 26 October 2023, the Tribunal made the following order:

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

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is to advise [The tenant/s] of who will be attending the inspection which is to be included in the above relevant notice.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I have given careful consideration to all matters raised by [The tenant/s]. For the following reasons [The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4589009 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4589009 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions