What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645929 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4645929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645929?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10225338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645929 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4645929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645929?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10225338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645929 — State of repair

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for herself. 1
Hamish Reid attended for sublandlord, Visionwest Community Trust, a social housing provider.
Mike Yu attended for the landlord, Shelter Realty, a property management company. Shelter Realty acts as agent for Bin Liu. 1 This is a reserved decision. I heard the matter yesterday, 17 April 2024.
The tenant applies for an order for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision dated 30 January 2024. In that decision, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $3,561.48 for compensation and costs and issued work orders. It declined to order exemplary damages because it was not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises.
The tenant submits the Tribunal erred by failing to order exemplary damages against the landlord and the sublandlord.

Should a rehearing be ordered?

The tenancy began on 18 November 2022 and is continuing.
In her application for rehearing, the tenant states: I believe the landlord was not truthful about their knowledge about the condition of the property. And the adjudicator accepted their statements without requiring sufficient proof. Therefore the landlord was not suitably penalised for the lack of maintenance of the property. Also new evidence – Building Act Breaches Incompetent work that is negligent Does not comply with building code – re-roof. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the 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, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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 occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. Discussion
Today at hearing, the tenant submitted an email dated 22 May 2023 from the landlord’s contractor to her that attached photographs of parts of the house that needed repair. Mr Yu says he could not find a copy of the contractor’s photographs on his file, but they show work was being done to a widnow as had been arranged with the tenant.
The photographs suggest the contractor was working on the problem areas photographed. The email does not contain any text. The tenant submits the contractor did not properly complete the repair. The landlord does not concede that the repair was not completed.
The tenant submitted Google Earth street view images that indicate at about September 2022, for example, the house’s weatherboards look in need of repainting and some trees need to be trimmed away from the house.
The tenant also submitted an email dated 24 July 2023 from the landlord’s contractor to the property manager. The email mentions three maintenance issues that need repair. This in in the context the tenant sent the sublandlord a builder’s report detailing the house’s defects on 28 July 2023, just four days later.
The contractor’s photographs, the Google Earth photographs, and the 24 July 2023 email were reasonably available at the time of the substantive hearing. Their admission is not likely to have affected the Tribunal’s finding on exemplary damages in any event.
The tenant produced photographs of work done by the landlord’s contractors after the hearing. She says the photographs show this latest work was done sub-optimally, including that rotten wooden framing was not replaced when the house was re-roofed. She says this evidence proves that the landlord and the sublandlord knowingly employed substandard contractors who persistently did substandard work on the house.
The landlord and the sublandlord say the contractors are competent and completed the work correctly.
The tenant could not provide expert evidence on the workmanship because of the cost involved. Without the assistance of expert evidence, I cannot determine whether the work depicted in the photographs was completed competently or not.
I do not consider this new evidence would have materially affected the Tribunal’s decision not to award exemplary damages.
None of the tenant’s other submissions satisfied me that my decision involves a substantial wrong or a present or potential miscarriage of justice. Conclusion
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
It follows, the application for a rehearing is dismissed. Non-publication
The non-publication order made in the original decision is applied to this decision.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for herself. 1
Hamish Reid attended for sublandlord, Visionwest Community Trust, a social housing provider.
Mike Yu attended for the landlord, Shelter Realty, a property management company. Shelter Realty acts as agent for Bin Liu. 1 This is a reserved decision. I heard the matter yesterday, 17 April 2024.
The tenant applies for an order for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision dated 30 January 2024. In that decision, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $3,561.48 for compensation and costs and issued work orders. It declined to order exemplary damages because it was not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises.
The tenant submits the Tribunal erred by failing to order exemplary damages against the landlord and the sublandlord.

Should a rehearing be ordered?

The tenancy began on 18 November 2022 and is continuing.
In her application for rehearing, the tenant states: I believe the landlord was not truthful about their knowledge about the condition of the property. And the adjudicator accepted their statements without requiring sufficient proof. Therefore the landlord was not suitably penalised for the lack of maintenance of the property. Also new evidence – Building Act Breaches Incompetent work that is negligent Does not comply with building code – re-roof. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the 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, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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 occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. Discussion
Today at hearing, the tenant submitted an email dated 22 May 2023 from the landlord’s contractor to her that attached photographs of parts of the house that needed repair. Mr Yu says he could not find a copy of the contractor’s photographs on his file, but they show work was being done to a widnow as had been arranged with the tenant.
The photographs suggest the contractor was working on the problem areas photographed. The email does not contain any text. The tenant submits the contractor did not properly complete the repair. The landlord does not concede that the repair was not completed.
The tenant submitted Google Earth street view images that indicate at about September 2022, for example, the house’s weatherboards look in need of repainting and some trees need to be trimmed away from the house.
The tenant also submitted an email dated 24 July 2023 from the landlord’s contractor to the property manager. The email mentions three maintenance issues that need repair. This in in the context the tenant sent the sublandlord a builder’s report detailing the house’s defects on 28 July 2023, just four days later.
The contractor’s photographs, the Google Earth photographs, and the 24 July 2023 email were reasonably available at the time of the substantive hearing. Their admission is not likely to have affected the Tribunal’s finding on exemplary damages in any event.
The tenant produced photographs of work done by the landlord’s contractors after the hearing. She says the photographs show this latest work was done sub-optimally, including that rotten wooden framing was not replaced when the house was re-roofed. She says this evidence proves that the landlord and the sublandlord knowingly employed substandard contractors who persistently did substandard work on the house.
The landlord and the sublandlord say the contractors are competent and completed the work correctly.
The tenant could not provide expert evidence on the workmanship because of the cost involved. Without the assistance of expert evidence, I cannot determine whether the work depicted in the photographs was completed competently or not.
I do not consider this new evidence would have materially affected the Tribunal’s decision not to award exemplary damages.
None of the tenant’s other submissions satisfied me that my decision involves a substantial wrong or a present or potential miscarriage of justice. Conclusion
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
It follows, the application for a rehearing is dismissed. Non-publication
The non-publication order made in the original decision is applied to this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645929 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645929 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions