What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685290 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4685290?

Compensation: (increased power due t…: $86.09 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (loss of amenity, inco…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4635664 D…: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $242.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685290?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685290 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4685290?

Compensation: (increased power due t…: $86.09 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (loss of amenity, inco…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4635664 D…: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $242.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685290?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4685290 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685290 — net $7,884.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023	$242.00		Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023
Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023		$20.44	Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023
Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain- locks		$2,400.00	(Failure to maintain- locks
Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain-rodents		$4,000.00	(Failure to maintain-rodents
Compensation: (increased power due to flooding		$86.09	(increased power due to flooding
Compensation: (loss of amenity, inconvenience, and		$1,600.00	(loss of amenity, inconvenience, and
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$242.00	$8,126.97
Net award		$7,884.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,884.97

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 14 February 2024 Order stands.
The landlord must pay the tenant immediately the remaining balance of $4,000.00 of exemplary damages that is outstanding from 14 February 2024 Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 14 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order that Immanuel Enterprises Limited As Agent For Sahil Arora & Harman Ghatore must pay [the tenant] $7,884.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023)$242.00 Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023$20.44 Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain- locks)$2,400.00 Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain-rodents)$4,000.00 Compensation: (increased power due to flooding)$86.09 Compensation: (loss of amenity, inconvenience, and stress from flooded back room) $1,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$242.00$8,126.97 Net award$7,884.97 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$7,884.97
On 20 February 2024, Mr Kuang (Property Manager and Agent for the Owners) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The landlord has new evidence that it says was not reasonably available to it on the date of the substantive hearing, being: i. A builder’s report it received on 18/02/2024, 4 days after the hearing, that it claims details what the builder saw when they removed the ceiling and confirms there were no signs of rats around the ceiling. ii. New evidence that the landlord claims proves that pest control came eight times rather than two times, as tenants claimed and the landlord did not refute, during the substantive hearing. The landlord claims he received 8 different pest control service reports on 19/02/24 for the period 13/12/2022 to 26/4/2023 and could not have requested this report from the pest control service provider prior to the substantive hearing. iii. I did not discuss the quantum of exemplary damages with him during the hearing and the first he knew of these was when he received the written order. iv. The landlord was not given the proper chance to explain his story, and the written order omits parts of the face-to-face discussion which support the landlord’s argument.
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. Neither of these grounds has been proven by the tenant in her rehearing application.
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.
No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
Mr Kuang did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that he could not have obtained from the property owner with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.
The evidence Mr Kuang provided today shows the lack of communication between him and the property owner and their failure to keep each other informed about who was addressing what issues at the property. This miscommunication and lack of communication resulted in Mr Kuang mismanaging the property during the tenancy and not having undertaken reasonable diligence to obtain all the information that was readily available to him from the property owner before the original hearing.
The owner of the property stated that he had not been kept informed by his Agent of the date of the original hearing or of all the tenant’s claims to be heard at the original hearing. As such, the owner was surprised to receive the 14 February 2024 Order which awarded the tenant damages of $7,884.97.
As soon as the owner was provided a copy of the 14 February 2024 Order, he went out to get new evidence, that would have been reasonably available to his Agent if the Agent had asked him for it or taken the time to fully explain all the tenant’s claims to him. Mr Kuang stated that he had not considered he would require such evidence to defend the tenant’s claims.
Mr Kuang and the property owner did not provide any evidence today that proves that Mr Kuang was not able to obtain a report from the builder or the invoices from the pest control company prior to the 14 February 2024, that he is now seeking to rely on, nor was any evidence provided to show that Mr Kuang was no longer appointed as the property owners Agent at the time of the original hearing and therefore had no authority to represent the property owners.
Mr Kuang stated in his application that I did not discuss or negotiate with him the amounts I ordered for exemplary damages for the two proven s45 breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by the landlord. He claims in his application this was a procedural issue that may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The amount of compensation and exemplary damages awarded is dependent on the facts of each case before the Tribunal and the quantum of exemplary damages is something the Tribunal sets after fully considering all the evidence post hearing. I was not required to discuss or negotiate with Mr Kuang during the hearing the amounts I ultimately ordered. This is not a procedural error that is grounds for a rehearing. If a party has an issue with the quantum of an award, then that is a matter for appeal not grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Kuang has also stated that I did not record all his evidence in my order/decision. I am not required to record all the evidence I hear and consider in my order/decision. I am required to summarise the pertinent facts/evidence that I relied on. I did this. At no time during the hearing did Mr Kuang inform me that he had more relevant evidence he wanted me to consider. I listened to his story and considered the evidence he provided. I checked with the parties at the end of the hearing if there was any further evidence or information, they wanted to give to me before I brought the hearing to a close. Not recording all of Mr Kuang’s evidence in my order/decision is also not a procedural issue and is not grounds for a rehearing.
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.
Mr Kuang’s application for a rehearing suggests he is unhappy with the decision and is seeking ways to overturn the decision as an alternative to an appeal. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or relitigate its case.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed and the Tribunal’s 14 February 2024 Order stands.
The tenant acknowledged at today’s hearing that she has received all but the $4,000.00 of exemplary damages awarded to her. The landlord must immediately pay the tenant the balance of $4,000.00 owing to the tenant in exemplary damages from 14 February 2024 Order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685290 — net $7,884.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023	$242.00		Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023
Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023		$20.44	Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023
Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain- locks		$2,400.00	(Failure to maintain- locks
Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain-rodents		$4,000.00	(Failure to maintain-rodents
Compensation: (increased power due to flooding		$86.09	(increased power due to flooding
Compensation: (loss of amenity, inconvenience, and		$1,600.00	(loss of amenity, inconvenience, and
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$242.00	$8,126.97
Net award		$7,884.97
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,884.97

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 14 February 2024 Order stands.
The landlord must pay the tenant immediately the remaining balance of $4,000.00 of exemplary damages that is outstanding from 14 February 2024 Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 14 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order that Immanuel Enterprises Limited As Agent For Sahil Arora & Harman Ghatore must pay [the tenant] $7,884.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears (to 18 July 2023)$242.00 Previous order application 4635664 dated 06/09/2023$20.44 Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain- locks)$2,400.00 Exemplary damages: (Failure to maintain-rodents)$4,000.00 Compensation: (increased power due to flooding)$86.09 Compensation: (loss of amenity, inconvenience, and stress from flooded back room) $1,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$242.00$8,126.97 Net award$7,884.97 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$7,884.97
On 20 February 2024, Mr Kuang (Property Manager and Agent for the Owners) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The landlord has new evidence that it says was not reasonably available to it on the date of the substantive hearing, being: i. A builder’s report it received on 18/02/2024, 4 days after the hearing, that it claims details what the builder saw when they removed the ceiling and confirms there were no signs of rats around the ceiling. ii. New evidence that the landlord claims proves that pest control came eight times rather than two times, as tenants claimed and the landlord did not refute, during the substantive hearing. The landlord claims he received 8 different pest control service reports on 19/02/24 for the period 13/12/2022 to 26/4/2023 and could not have requested this report from the pest control service provider prior to the substantive hearing. iii. I did not discuss the quantum of exemplary damages with him during the hearing and the first he knew of these was when he received the written order. iv. The landlord was not given the proper chance to explain his story, and the written order omits parts of the face-to-face discussion which support the landlord’s argument.
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. Neither of these grounds has been proven by the tenant in her rehearing application.
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.
No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
Mr Kuang did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that he could not have obtained from the property owner with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.
The evidence Mr Kuang provided today shows the lack of communication between him and the property owner and their failure to keep each other informed about who was addressing what issues at the property. This miscommunication and lack of communication resulted in Mr Kuang mismanaging the property during the tenancy and not having undertaken reasonable diligence to obtain all the information that was readily available to him from the property owner before the original hearing.
The owner of the property stated that he had not been kept informed by his Agent of the date of the original hearing or of all the tenant’s claims to be heard at the original hearing. As such, the owner was surprised to receive the 14 February 2024 Order which awarded the tenant damages of $7,884.97.
As soon as the owner was provided a copy of the 14 February 2024 Order, he went out to get new evidence, that would have been reasonably available to his Agent if the Agent had asked him for it or taken the time to fully explain all the tenant’s claims to him. Mr Kuang stated that he had not considered he would require such evidence to defend the tenant’s claims.
Mr Kuang and the property owner did not provide any evidence today that proves that Mr Kuang was not able to obtain a report from the builder or the invoices from the pest control company prior to the 14 February 2024, that he is now seeking to rely on, nor was any evidence provided to show that Mr Kuang was no longer appointed as the property owners Agent at the time of the original hearing and therefore had no authority to represent the property owners.
Mr Kuang stated in his application that I did not discuss or negotiate with him the amounts I ordered for exemplary damages for the two proven s45 breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by the landlord. He claims in his application this was a procedural issue that may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The amount of compensation and exemplary damages awarded is dependent on the facts of each case before the Tribunal and the quantum of exemplary damages is something the Tribunal sets after fully considering all the evidence post hearing. I was not required to discuss or negotiate with Mr Kuang during the hearing the amounts I ultimately ordered. This is not a procedural error that is grounds for a rehearing. If a party has an issue with the quantum of an award, then that is a matter for appeal not grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Kuang has also stated that I did not record all his evidence in my order/decision. I am not required to record all the evidence I hear and consider in my order/decision. I am required to summarise the pertinent facts/evidence that I relied on. I did this. At no time during the hearing did Mr Kuang inform me that he had more relevant evidence he wanted me to consider. I listened to his story and considered the evidence he provided. I checked with the parties at the end of the hearing if there was any further evidence or information, they wanted to give to me before I brought the hearing to a close. Not recording all of Mr Kuang’s evidence in my order/decision is also not a procedural issue and is not grounds for a rehearing.
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.
Mr Kuang’s application for a rehearing suggests he is unhappy with the decision and is seeking ways to overturn the decision as an alternative to an appeal. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or relitigate its case.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed and the Tribunal’s 14 February 2024 Order stands.
The tenant acknowledged at today’s hearing that she has received all but the $4,000.00 of exemplary damages awarded to her. The landlord must immediately pay the tenant the balance of $4,000.00 owing to the tenant in exemplary damages from 14 February 2024 Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685290 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685290 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions