What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639454 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4639454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639454?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10787634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639454 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4639454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639454?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10787634-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639454 — Smoke alarms

Order

The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of enforcement granted on 25 June 2024 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Shi was represented by her husband, Mr Li, on her authority. The tenant appeared with a support person.
On 4 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order as set out below awarding the tenant a rent reduction of 20% for the duration of the tenancy, a period of 46 weeks, as the tenancy was an unlawful residential premises (an unconsented upstairs/downstairs makeshift conversion in which the tenant lived upstairs):
On 4 June 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenancy had in fact been for a period of 44 weeks and not 46. The rehearing application stated “I do not need a rehearing but please correct the total weeks...”.
On 13 June 2024 the Tribunal issued an amended order based on a 20% rent reduction over a period of 44 weeks as follows: .
On 18 June 2024 the landlord filed a further application for re-hearing on the basis that: a. The downstairs tenant in fact moved out on 12 September 2023, that the tenancy was only unlawful while a downstairs tenant was in residence, and so the tenant should only be entitled to a rent reduction for a period of
85 weeks (not 44 weeks); b. The Tribunal did not order compensation for a broken window handle and door lock and missing smoke alarm as it overlooked evidence provided from the start of the tenancy; and c. That the Tribunal’s reasoning that any fleas could have come from the downstairs tenancy does not make sense as the downstairs tenants had moved out for more than seven weeks.
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. Duration of the unlawful tenancy
The landlord said after receiving the amended order that they have taken professional advice and do not agree that a 20% rent reduction should be applied over the 44 weeks of the tenancy, as the downstairs tenant was only living downstairs for 36.85 weeks.
This is not new evidence. This point was raised at the first hearing. The Tribunal’s assessment of the compensation to be awarded to the tenant was made after considering “all of the circumstances”, including the duration of the residence of the downstairs tenant.
The duration of the downstairs tenancy does not provide a basis for a rehearing. Window handle/door lock/smoke alarm
The landlord explained that the Tribunal appeared to have overlooked photos from the start of the tenancy showing the condition of a window handle, door lock and smoke alarm when dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation of $170.00.
The landlord referred me to three photos that were filed with the landlord’s claim. The first photo is of a kitchen/lounge taken at some distance, with a kitchen window latch and lounge ranchslider handle (circled). The second photo is of the lounge at a distance, with the ranchslider handle (circled). The third photo is of a bedroom and shows a smoke alarm on the wall (also circled).
I have reviewed these photos again as part of the landlord’s rehearing application. The onus is on the landlord to prove damage. In my view the landlord has not proved that damage occurred during the tenancy. The original photos are taken at such a distance that it is not possible to accurately assess their condition. The evidence on the smoke alarm is also inconclusive.
I note in addition that the landlord’s husband says that he fixed the window latch and ranch slider lock himself. No invoice was produced (or evidence of the time taken and reasonable labour charged) and so there is no basis on which to order compensation, even if this claim had been proved.
The photos showing the kitchen window, ranchslider handle and smoke alarm do not provide a basis for a rehearing. Fleas
The landlord’s claim for compensation in the amount of $600 for fleas was dismissed. The landlord’s submission is that the Tribunal was wrong in its assessment of the cause of the fleas. The landlord had the onus at the original hearing of proving that the tenant was responsible for the fleas. The Tribunal did not find this claim proved. The landlord has not provided any new evidence on this issue or proved any basis for a rehearing. Result
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed. It follows that the stay of enforcement is lifted and the Tribunal’s original order (as amended) may now be enforced.
I have continued the original suppression orders to that the tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

Order

The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of enforcement granted on 25 June 2024 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Shi was represented by her husband, Mr Li, on her authority. The tenant appeared with a support person.
On 4 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order as set out below awarding the tenant a rent reduction of 20% for the duration of the tenancy, a period of 46 weeks, as the tenancy was an unlawful residential premises (an unconsented upstairs/downstairs makeshift conversion in which the tenant lived upstairs):
On 4 June 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenancy had in fact been for a period of 44 weeks and not 46. The rehearing application stated “I do not need a rehearing but please correct the total weeks...”.
On 13 June 2024 the Tribunal issued an amended order based on a 20% rent reduction over a period of 44 weeks as follows: .
On 18 June 2024 the landlord filed a further application for re-hearing on the basis that: a. The downstairs tenant in fact moved out on 12 September 2023, that the tenancy was only unlawful while a downstairs tenant was in residence, and so the tenant should only be entitled to a rent reduction for a period of
85 weeks (not 44 weeks); b. The Tribunal did not order compensation for a broken window handle and door lock and missing smoke alarm as it overlooked evidence provided from the start of the tenancy; and c. That the Tribunal’s reasoning that any fleas could have come from the downstairs tenancy does not make sense as the downstairs tenants had moved out for more than seven weeks.
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. Duration of the unlawful tenancy
The landlord said after receiving the amended order that they have taken professional advice and do not agree that a 20% rent reduction should be applied over the 44 weeks of the tenancy, as the downstairs tenant was only living downstairs for 36.85 weeks.
This is not new evidence. This point was raised at the first hearing. The Tribunal’s assessment of the compensation to be awarded to the tenant was made after considering “all of the circumstances”, including the duration of the residence of the downstairs tenant.
The duration of the downstairs tenancy does not provide a basis for a rehearing. Window handle/door lock/smoke alarm
The landlord explained that the Tribunal appeared to have overlooked photos from the start of the tenancy showing the condition of a window handle, door lock and smoke alarm when dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation of $170.00.
The landlord referred me to three photos that were filed with the landlord’s claim. The first photo is of a kitchen/lounge taken at some distance, with a kitchen window latch and lounge ranchslider handle (circled). The second photo is of the lounge at a distance, with the ranchslider handle (circled). The third photo is of a bedroom and shows a smoke alarm on the wall (also circled).
I have reviewed these photos again as part of the landlord’s rehearing application. The onus is on the landlord to prove damage. In my view the landlord has not proved that damage occurred during the tenancy. The original photos are taken at such a distance that it is not possible to accurately assess their condition. The evidence on the smoke alarm is also inconclusive.
I note in addition that the landlord’s husband says that he fixed the window latch and ranch slider lock himself. No invoice was produced (or evidence of the time taken and reasonable labour charged) and so there is no basis on which to order compensation, even if this claim had been proved.
The photos showing the kitchen window, ranchslider handle and smoke alarm do not provide a basis for a rehearing. Fleas
The landlord’s claim for compensation in the amount of $600 for fleas was dismissed. The landlord’s submission is that the Tribunal was wrong in its assessment of the cause of the fleas. The landlord had the onus at the original hearing of proving that the tenant was responsible for the fleas. The Tribunal did not find this claim proved. The landlord has not provided any new evidence on this issue or proved any basis for a rehearing. Result
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed. It follows that the stay of enforcement is lifted and the Tribunal’s original order (as amended) may now be enforced.
I have continued the original suppression orders to that the tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639454 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639454 — 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

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