What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4615330 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is continued.

How much money was awarded in case 4615330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615330?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10803390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4615330 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is continued.

How much money was awarded in case 4615330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615330?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10803390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

78 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615330 — Cleanliness

Order

Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is continued.
The landlords’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Proceedings
An Order was made by the Tribunal on 9 May 2023 in respect of the tenant’s application 4490380, declaring that the parties were parties to a residential tenancy agreement, subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The premises were declared to be unlawful residential premises and orders were made refunding the bond to the tenant and for compensation to be paid by the landlords.
The landlords then filed an application for rehearing and also filed an application seeking compensation for cleaning and damages. In an Order dated 31 July 2023, the Tribunal granted the application for rehearing.
A hearing was held, and an Order was issued on 30 April 2024, determining the rehearing of the Order dated 9 May 2023 in respect of the tenant’s application, and a first hearing of the landlords’ application 4615330.
The landlords applied for a rehearing of the 30 April 2024 Order. In considering that rehearing application, an Order was made on 7 May 2023 directing that a hearing should be held, to determine whether a rehearing should be granted. The 7 May 2024 Order noted that because the Order dated 30 April 2024 was itself a rehearing of the tenant’s application 4490380, “The hearing is limited to a consideration of whether there should be a rehearing of the landlord’s compensation claims in application 4615330.” Grounds for Rehearing
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?

The landlords have advanced several grounds on which they say a miscarriage of justice has occurred, as follows: “a. Tribunal did not reference relevant law sections where applicable (s.109D s.40, s.78A (3) and (4); b. evidence provided by the other party was improperly admitted; c. evidence provided by me was improperly rejected; d. Tribunal didn't follow previous orders with the same situations e. Other concerns about the agreement and shared facilities,” each of those grounds is considered separately below. Tribunal did not reference relevant law sections where applicable (s.109D s.40, s.78A (3) and (4);
Section 109D concerns pecuniary penalties (exemplary damages) for unlawful acts. The Order found that the landlords had committed unlawful acts, but no exemplary damages were awarded against them, for reasons given in the Order. Therefore, the landlords cannot have been prejudiced through misapplication or failure to apply s.190D.
Section 40(1)(d) requires a tenant to notify the landlord of damage to the premises or the need for repair. No claim for breach of that obligation was brought. With respect, I think the landlords may have misunderstood the purpose of the discussions around that obligation during the hearing. It was likely to have been in the context of whether it was appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages against the landlords. It is relevant in considering awards of exemplary damages, whether a landlord has been notified by the tenant about what are found to have been unlawful acts (see s.109(3)). Again, no exemplary damages were ordered against the landlords.
While the landlords to not agree with the Tribunal’s application of those provisions, s.78A(3) and (4) were expressly addressed in the order.
The landlords say that dismissal of their compensation claims constituted a miscarriage of justice.
They point out the comment in the Order that interior damage would necessarily be greater when a household occupies what were not consented for use as separate residential premises. They say that is a broad assumption made without a basis in the evidence. There is substance to that concern.
However, the fundamental finding in relation to the landlords’ compensation claims was that an order for compensation was prevented by section 78A(3). The landlords believe that section 78A(3) should not have been applied that way because of relevant special circumstances (s.78A(3)(a)). That was a matter addressed in the Order after hearing from the parties. Special circumstances, that were factors in the decision not to make any awards of exemplary damages for the landlords’ unlawful acts, were identified and taken into account. The landlords are entitled to challenge the findings but that is not a basis for rehearing being granted.
The landlords also say that before compensation can be awarded there must be proof of loss. They say the tenant suffered no loss so there was no possible basis for awarding her compensation. With respect, that overlooks that in a residential tenancy agreement, the benefit to the tenant of what they are paying rent for is the use of the premises. In that context, loss can result from a reduction the utility or enjoyment of the premises for which they are paying rent, not only from “out of pocket” costs. Evidence provided by the other party was improperly admitted
Evidence was provided by the parties about the heating and cooking facilities provided to the tenant.
Reasons are given in the Order for the findings made about those matters.
The landlords dispute how that evidence was interpreted, but that is not the same as evidence having been improperly admitted. Evidence provided by me was improperly rejected
Again, the landlords are entitled to challenge the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence provided by them and by the tenant. That is not the same as having their evidence improperly rejected.
The landlords also say that new/ additional evidence is available showing that the cooking facilities provided to the tenant by the landlords, were adequate. There is a possibility that new evidence, had it been produced at the hearing, may have influenced that finding.
As noted, a rehearing should not be granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their case. There is no apparent reason why that evidence could not have been produced at the previous hearing. My view is that in any event, of itself, that would not constitute sufficient grounds to order a rehearing. Tribunal didn’t follow previous orders with the same situations
The Tribunal is not bound to follow previous Tribunal Orders, but other decisions of the Tribunal are of course an important consideration.
This part of the landlords’ claim relates to the Tribunal’s finding that these were unlawful premises.
That finding was made in the Tribunal’s Order dated 9 May 2023 (4490380). The same finding was made following a rehearing of the 9 May 2023 Order, in the Order dated 30 April 2024.
As was made clear in the Order of 7 May 2024, it is not open to the landlord to seek a further rehearing in respect of that that finding. Other concerns about the agreement and shared facilities
These concerns also relate to the finding that these were unlawful premises. As noted, that matter has been reheard and is not a matter that should be reheard again.
For those reasons the landlords have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Order

Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is continued.
The landlords’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Proceedings
An Order was made by the Tribunal on 9 May 2023 in respect of the tenant’s application 4490380, declaring that the parties were parties to a residential tenancy agreement, subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The premises were declared to be unlawful residential premises and orders were made refunding the bond to the tenant and for compensation to be paid by the landlords.
The landlords then filed an application for rehearing and also filed an application seeking compensation for cleaning and damages. In an Order dated 31 July 2023, the Tribunal granted the application for rehearing.
A hearing was held, and an Order was issued on 30 April 2024, determining the rehearing of the Order dated 9 May 2023 in respect of the tenant’s application, and a first hearing of the landlords’ application 4615330.
The landlords applied for a rehearing of the 30 April 2024 Order. In considering that rehearing application, an Order was made on 7 May 2023 directing that a hearing should be held, to determine whether a rehearing should be granted. The 7 May 2024 Order noted that because the Order dated 30 April 2024 was itself a rehearing of the tenant’s application 4490380, “The hearing is limited to a consideration of whether there should be a rehearing of the landlord’s compensation claims in application 4615330.” Grounds for Rehearing
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?

The landlords have advanced several grounds on which they say a miscarriage of justice has occurred, as follows: “a. Tribunal did not reference relevant law sections where applicable (s.109D s.40, s.78A (3) and (4); b. evidence provided by the other party was improperly admitted; c. evidence provided by me was improperly rejected; d. Tribunal didn't follow previous orders with the same situations e. Other concerns about the agreement and shared facilities,” each of those grounds is considered separately below. Tribunal did not reference relevant law sections where applicable (s.109D s.40, s.78A (3) and (4);
Section 109D concerns pecuniary penalties (exemplary damages) for unlawful acts. The Order found that the landlords had committed unlawful acts, but no exemplary damages were awarded against them, for reasons given in the Order. Therefore, the landlords cannot have been prejudiced through misapplication or failure to apply s.190D.
Section 40(1)(d) requires a tenant to notify the landlord of damage to the premises or the need for repair. No claim for breach of that obligation was brought. With respect, I think the landlords may have misunderstood the purpose of the discussions around that obligation during the hearing. It was likely to have been in the context of whether it was appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages against the landlords. It is relevant in considering awards of exemplary damages, whether a landlord has been notified by the tenant about what are found to have been unlawful acts (see s.109(3)). Again, no exemplary damages were ordered against the landlords.
While the landlords to not agree with the Tribunal’s application of those provisions, s.78A(3) and (4) were expressly addressed in the order.
The landlords say that dismissal of their compensation claims constituted a miscarriage of justice.
They point out the comment in the Order that interior damage would necessarily be greater when a household occupies what were not consented for use as separate residential premises. They say that is a broad assumption made without a basis in the evidence. There is substance to that concern.
However, the fundamental finding in relation to the landlords’ compensation claims was that an order for compensation was prevented by section 78A(3). The landlords believe that section 78A(3) should not have been applied that way because of relevant special circumstances (s.78A(3)(a)). That was a matter addressed in the Order after hearing from the parties. Special circumstances, that were factors in the decision not to make any awards of exemplary damages for the landlords’ unlawful acts, were identified and taken into account. The landlords are entitled to challenge the findings but that is not a basis for rehearing being granted.
The landlords also say that before compensation can be awarded there must be proof of loss. They say the tenant suffered no loss so there was no possible basis for awarding her compensation. With respect, that overlooks that in a residential tenancy agreement, the benefit to the tenant of what they are paying rent for is the use of the premises. In that context, loss can result from a reduction the utility or enjoyment of the premises for which they are paying rent, not only from “out of pocket” costs. Evidence provided by the other party was improperly admitted
Evidence was provided by the parties about the heating and cooking facilities provided to the tenant.
Reasons are given in the Order for the findings made about those matters.
The landlords dispute how that evidence was interpreted, but that is not the same as evidence having been improperly admitted. Evidence provided by me was improperly rejected
Again, the landlords are entitled to challenge the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence provided by them and by the tenant. That is not the same as having their evidence improperly rejected.
The landlords also say that new/ additional evidence is available showing that the cooking facilities provided to the tenant by the landlords, were adequate. There is a possibility that new evidence, had it been produced at the hearing, may have influenced that finding.
As noted, a rehearing should not be granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their case. There is no apparent reason why that evidence could not have been produced at the previous hearing. My view is that in any event, of itself, that would not constitute sufficient grounds to order a rehearing. Tribunal didn’t follow previous orders with the same situations
The Tribunal is not bound to follow previous Tribunal Orders, but other decisions of the Tribunal are of course an important consideration.
This part of the landlords’ claim relates to the Tribunal’s finding that these were unlawful premises.
That finding was made in the Tribunal’s Order dated 9 May 2023 (4490380). The same finding was made following a rehearing of the 9 May 2023 Order, in the Order dated 30 April 2024.
As was made clear in the Order of 7 May 2024, it is not open to the landlord to seek a further rehearing in respect of that that finding. Other concerns about the agreement and shared facilities
These concerns also relate to the finding that these were unlawful premises. As noted, that matter has been reheard and is not a matter that should be reheard again.
For those reasons the landlords have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615330 — Cleanliness at 78 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615330 — Cleanliness at 78 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions