What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4593731?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4593731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4593731?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4593731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9651813-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4593731?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4593731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4593731?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4593731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9651813-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1304 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4593731 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application, which was held by phone.

On 10 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order for awarding outstanding water rates to the landlord and awarding compensation and exemplary damages to the tenant, as follows:

On 14 September 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. There had not been a breach of quiet enjoyment (that the landlord had not “harassed” the tenant); b. The landlord had established a power connection to the garage but that the tenant had disconnected this connection (with attached photos); and c. It was the tenant’s failure to maintain the lawn and grass that led to water pooling on the property, and so the tenant contributed to the path issues.

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 has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The landlord could not point to any new evidence or any failure of the Tribunal’s procedure. The landlord simply disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision. As stated above, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with a decision or would like to have a second opportunity to present their case. Power connection

The landlord produced photos of the power connection which show an extension cord running from the main house to the garage.

The photos are not new evidence as they were taken during the tenancy. The landlord accepted that the photos were not produced at the first hearing. However even if they had been produced at the hearing they would not have affected the outcome because the tenant’s complaint was that she was not provided with a proper safe electricity connection rather than an extension cord, as shown in the photos. Path issues

The landlord produced photos, some of which had been presented by the tenant at the original hearing. The landlord argued that the grass was so long that the water was able to drain away from the path and so the tenant had contributed to the problem.

This submission was not made at the first hearing. If it had been made however the Tribunal would not have accepted the submission because there is clearly water pooling in numerous places on the property, not just where the grass appears to be long, and that the pooling of water had been an ongoing issue throughout the tenancy.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 15 September 2023 is now lifted and the Tribunal Order dated 10 September 2023 may now be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application, which was held by phone.
On 10 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order for awarding outstanding water rates to the landlord and awarding compensation and exemplary damages to the tenant, as follows:
On 14 September 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. There had not been a breach of quiet enjoyment (that the landlord had not “harassed” the tenant); b. The landlord had established a power connection to the garage but that the tenant had disconnected this connection (with attached photos); and c. It was the tenant’s failure to maintain the lawn and grass that led to water pooling on the property, and so the tenant contributed to the path issues.
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 has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The landlord could not point to any new evidence or any failure of the Tribunal’s procedure. The landlord simply disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision. As stated above, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with a decision or would like to have a second opportunity to present their case. Power connection
The landlord produced photos of the power connection which show an extension cord running from the main house to the garage.
The photos are not new evidence as they were taken during the tenancy. The landlord accepted that the photos were not produced at the first hearing. However even if they had been produced at the hearing they would not have affected the outcome because the tenant’s complaint was that she was not provided with a proper safe electricity connection rather than an extension cord, as shown in the photos. Path issues
The landlord produced photos, some of which had been presented by the tenant at the original hearing. The landlord argued that the grass was so long that the water was able to drain away from the path and so the tenant had contributed to the problem.
This submission was not made at the first hearing. If it had been made however the Tribunal would not have accepted the submission because there is clearly water pooling in numerous places on the property, not just where the grass appears to be long, and that the pooling of water had been an ongoing issue throughout the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4593731 — Exemplary damages at 1304 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4593731 — Exemplary damages at 1304 Dominion Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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