What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677157 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11161036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677157 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11161036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34 Pahi Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677157 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 23 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation for a water leak, exemplary damages for failing to maintain, compensation for water rates and compensation for loss of furnishings.
On 30 August 2024 [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenants’ original application included the following applications which weren’t addressed in the subsequent Order: a. Bond refund ($1,500.00) b. Compensation for maintenance/ repairs done by tenant ($1,350.00) c. Rent rebate for handing keys early ($228.56) d. Reimbursement for carpet cleaning ($391.00) e. Reimbursement for window repair ($282.43) f. Compensation for costs of retaliatory notice ($6,238.88) g. Compensation for trailer hire/ dumping ($7618.88) h. Compensation for loan taken for new bond ($5,520.00) i. New evidence: neither Alice Du nor her father own 34 Pahi Place: Challenge decision /evidence presented.
An updated breakdown of claim was included with the application for a 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. Bond
The tenants claim that following the last hearing, the remaining bond of $1,500.00 that is being held by the Bond Centre has not been released to the tenants.
No Order regarding the bond was made in the Order dated 22 August 2024.
The tenants did not contact the landlord to get the landlord’s consent to have the bond released.
The tenants also stated that there is an added complication in that the landlord’s application was under the name of Capital Harbour Limited, and the Bond Centre had the landlord recorded as Harbour Capital Limited.
The landlord stated that because nobody contacted them regarding the bond, they were unable to consent to its release to the tenants. The landlord stated they do not dispute that the bond should be released to the tenants. Compensation for maintenance/ repairs done by tenant
During today’s hearing the tenants withdrew this claim. Rent rebate for handing keys early
The tenants claim that they were due a rent refund of $288.56 at the end of the tenancy, and there was an agreement in September 2023 with the landlord that this would be offset against the water rates charges of $108.36.
The landlord stated that the rent “overpayment” was in dispute due to the condition the tenants left the property in at the end of the tenancy, and the costs the landlord subsequently incurred for cleaning.
I note that in the hearing (on 22 August 2024) the tenant did not dispute the amount of water rates outstanding. This is recorded at [46] of my Order of 23 August 2024.
Whereas the tenant is unhappy that the rent “overpayment” hasn’t been resolved, I note that this appears to be due to a lack of argument during the two previous hearing days. The rent “overpayment” was not part of the original application, and clear submissions on this matter were not made during the two hearing days.
I do not consider this submission meets the test of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice grounds having occurred. Reimbursement for carpet cleaning, window repair and trailer hire, retaliatory notice, compensation for loan taken, and new evidence
The tenants raised in part these claims, but then chose not to pursue them further.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the above reasons, I determine that [The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 23 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation for a water leak, exemplary damages for failing to maintain, compensation for water rates and compensation for loss of furnishings.
On 30 August 2024 [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the tenants’ original application included the following applications which weren’t addressed in the subsequent Order: a. Bond refund ($1,500.00) b. Compensation for maintenance/ repairs done by tenant ($1,350.00) c. Rent rebate for handing keys early ($228.56) d. Reimbursement for carpet cleaning ($391.00) e. Reimbursement for window repair ($282.43) f. Compensation for costs of retaliatory notice ($6,238.88) g. Compensation for trailer hire/ dumping ($7618.88) h. Compensation for loan taken for new bond ($5,520.00) i. New evidence: neither Alice Du nor her father own 34 Pahi Place: Challenge decision /evidence presented.
An updated breakdown of claim was included with the application for a 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. Bond
The tenants claim that following the last hearing, the remaining bond of $1,500.00 that is being held by the Bond Centre has not been released to the tenants.
No Order regarding the bond was made in the Order dated 22 August 2024.
The tenants did not contact the landlord to get the landlord’s consent to have the bond released.
The tenants also stated that there is an added complication in that the landlord’s application was under the name of Capital Harbour Limited, and the Bond Centre had the landlord recorded as Harbour Capital Limited.
The landlord stated that because nobody contacted them regarding the bond, they were unable to consent to its release to the tenants. The landlord stated they do not dispute that the bond should be released to the tenants. Compensation for maintenance/ repairs done by tenant
During today’s hearing the tenants withdrew this claim. Rent rebate for handing keys early
The tenants claim that they were due a rent refund of $288.56 at the end of the tenancy, and there was an agreement in September 2023 with the landlord that this would be offset against the water rates charges of $108.36.
The landlord stated that the rent “overpayment” was in dispute due to the condition the tenants left the property in at the end of the tenancy, and the costs the landlord subsequently incurred for cleaning.
I note that in the hearing (on 22 August 2024) the tenant did not dispute the amount of water rates outstanding. This is recorded at [46] of my Order of 23 August 2024.
Whereas the tenant is unhappy that the rent “overpayment” hasn’t been resolved, I note that this appears to be due to a lack of argument during the two previous hearing days. The rent “overpayment” was not part of the original application, and clear submissions on this matter were not made during the two hearing days.
I do not consider this submission meets the test of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice grounds having occurred. Reimbursement for carpet cleaning, window repair and trailer hire, retaliatory notice, compensation for loan taken, and new evidence
The tenants raised in part these claims, but then chose not to pursue them further.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the above reasons, I determine that [The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677157 — Leaks at 34 Pahi Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677157 — Leaks at 34 Pahi Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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