What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4589909?

The tribunal order states: This order will not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4589909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4589909?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4589909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9372877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4589909?

The tribunal order states: This order will not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4589909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4589909?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4589909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9372877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 109A, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4589909 — Cleanliness

Order

This order will not be published.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing to decide if there should be a rehearing. The tenant did not attend.
On 20 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for the cost of carpet cleaning in favour of the landlord and dismissed the landlord’s claims for the insurance excess for a kitchen bench, and for “consumables’ in the amount of $100.
On 27 July 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: • The Tribunal had not required the landlord to provide information about an insurance claim before • The landlord was not given an opportunity to provide information about the insurance claim after the hearing • The landlord has new evidence about the insurance claim that is relevant • The decision about consumables was wrong • There are inconsistencies between adjudicators in hearing procedure.
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.
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.
Each ground has been considered. The Tribunal had not required the landlord to provide information about an insurance claim before.
Each claim before the Tribunal is different because of the different facts and the submissions made by different landlord and different tenants at the hearing. It is up to the applicant to provide the supporting documentation to prove the claim. It is not unreasonable, in a claim for an insurance excess, to ask whether an insurance claim has been made. Nor is it unreasonable to establish if the repair cost was less than the excess. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The landlord was not given an opportunity to provide information about the insurance claim after the hearing.
The landlord’s recollection of the hearing is that I would not allow information about the insurance claim to be produced after the hearing. This is my usual practice unless there is an adjournment. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because the other party and I would not have the opportunity to ask questions. There is no requirement that an adjudicator allow evidence to be submitted after a hearing. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The landlord has new evidence about the insurance claim that is relevant
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The insurance claim was lodged on 1 June 2023. This means the information was available to the landlord at the first hearing and it could have been produced with reasonable diligence. The landlord wants me to allow a rehearing so they get another opportunity to prove the claim for the $500 insurance excess. I do not find these circumstances are exceptional or the grounds compelling. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The decision about consumables was wrong
The landlord considers my decision about consumables to be wrong in law. Questions about the correct application of the law to the facts is grounds for an appeal and is not grounds for a rehearing. There are inconsistencies between adjudicators in hearing procedure.
Adjudicators are independent judicial officers. We endeavour to keep the Tribunal’s procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Section 96(4) RTA allows the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure “in such manner as it thinks fit”, and section 96(5) RTA allows adjudicators to give “all such directions and do all such things as are necessary or desirable for the expeditious and just hearing and determination of the case”. Section 85 RTA sets out that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a way that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. This, and the variety in claims and submissions, means there will always be differences in the way hearings are run.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I find the landlord has not established the grounds for a rehearing and the application is dismissed.

Order

This order will not be published.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing to decide if there should be a rehearing. The tenant did not attend.
On 20 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for the cost of carpet cleaning in favour of the landlord and dismissed the landlord’s claims for the insurance excess for a kitchen bench, and for “consumables’ in the amount of $100.
On 27 July 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: • The Tribunal had not required the landlord to provide information about an insurance claim before • The landlord was not given an opportunity to provide information about the insurance claim after the hearing • The landlord has new evidence about the insurance claim that is relevant • The decision about consumables was wrong • There are inconsistencies between adjudicators in hearing procedure.
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.
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.
Each ground has been considered. The Tribunal had not required the landlord to provide information about an insurance claim before.
Each claim before the Tribunal is different because of the different facts and the submissions made by different landlord and different tenants at the hearing. It is up to the applicant to provide the supporting documentation to prove the claim. It is not unreasonable, in a claim for an insurance excess, to ask whether an insurance claim has been made. Nor is it unreasonable to establish if the repair cost was less than the excess. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The landlord was not given an opportunity to provide information about the insurance claim after the hearing.
The landlord’s recollection of the hearing is that I would not allow information about the insurance claim to be produced after the hearing. This is my usual practice unless there is an adjournment. There are many reasons for this, but mostly because the other party and I would not have the opportunity to ask questions. There is no requirement that an adjudicator allow evidence to be submitted after a hearing. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The landlord has new evidence about the insurance claim that is relevant
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The insurance claim was lodged on 1 June 2023. This means the information was available to the landlord at the first hearing and it could have been produced with reasonable diligence. The landlord wants me to allow a rehearing so they get another opportunity to prove the claim for the $500 insurance excess. I do not find these circumstances are exceptional or the grounds compelling. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The decision about consumables was wrong
The landlord considers my decision about consumables to be wrong in law. Questions about the correct application of the law to the facts is grounds for an appeal and is not grounds for a rehearing. There are inconsistencies between adjudicators in hearing procedure.
Adjudicators are independent judicial officers. We endeavour to keep the Tribunal’s procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Section 96(4) RTA allows the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure “in such manner as it thinks fit”, and section 96(5) RTA allows adjudicators to give “all such directions and do all such things as are necessary or desirable for the expeditious and just hearing and determination of the case”. Section 85 RTA sets out that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a way that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. This, and the variety in claims and submissions, means there will always be differences in the way hearings are run.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I find the landlord has not established the grounds for a rehearing and the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4589909 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 109A, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4589909 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 109A, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria,

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