What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697449 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4697449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697449?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9942243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697449 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4697449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697449?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9942243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4697449 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Young must pay the tenant $870.44 immediately, as set out in the table in the Tribunal’s Order dated 20 December 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 December 2023, the Tribunal made an order for $850.00 exemplary damage for failure to maintain the premises and reimbursement of the $20.44 application fee.
On 8 January 2024, the Landlord made a late application for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. It had new evidence that proved the tenant lied during the 20 December 2023 hearing; b. All issues that resulted in the tenant issuing the landlord 14 day notices had been remedied; c. The leak had been fixed on the second day after the landlord had been notified; d. The Adjudicator made a decision on her own life experience and not on the facts of the case; e. The house is a brick house and was dry as the landlord did humidity tests.
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: a. The Landlord did not provide proof that there was a substantial error in process. It showed that it had not received the original tenant application on 23 October 2023 as it stated the tenant has supplied the wrong email address and an old postal address in her application. The landlord received a text notice of hearing on 9 December 2023. It contacted Tenancy Services that day and supplied the correct contact details. Tenancy Services emailed the Landlord all of the tenant’s evidence and application on 12 December 2023, being 8 days before the hearing. It had adequate time to prepare for the hearing on 20 December 2023 and did not ask for an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds it had not had sufficient time to prepare its defence; b. The Landlord did not provide any proof that the Tribunal wrongly admitted or rejected evidence during the hearing on 20 December 2023. It did try to relitigate whether the Tribunal’s findings were correct based on the evidence the Landlord submitted but did not point to any evidence wrongly admitted or rejected. The Landlord also stated it couldn’t remember if it had submitted some property inspection evidence during the hearing but argued that evidence disproved the tenant’s claims. Again this was not proof that the Tribunal wrongly admitted or rejected evidence during the 20 December 2023 hearing; c. The Landlord did not prove that the Adjudicator misconducted herself. It claimed that the Adjudicator believed the tenant and was biased towards it but did not provide any evidence the support that claim. It’s bias claim is based on it not agreeing with an example the Adjudicator gave that proved a leak can come from one point of a roof and cause a leak at another point in the house to support the assertion that the tenant made that the leak in one part of the roof was the cause of the water coming down the tenant’s bedroom wall. The Landlord did not deny there was a leak in the roof, nor that the leak caused the wet wall in the bedroom. Therefore, the Adjudicator’s example had no bearing on the Orders issued on 20 December 2023; d. The Landlord did not provide proof that it had important new evidence that was not available for the 20 December 2023 hearing. It had video and photographic evidence of the house on 20 December 2023 when it conducted its final inspection, after the hearing. It stated that this evidence showed the condition of the bedroom wall and the gap having been closed in the bedroom window by the end of the tenancy. It did not provide any proof that it had provided a dehumidifier any faster than 2 weeks after the roof leak resulted in water flowing down the bedroom wall nor did it prove that the roof of the bedroom was covered in mould as a result of the bedroom not being able to be dried out properly in the two months after the leak in the roof had been repaired. It was proof that the tenant had cleaned the mould off the roof herself and dried the premises out thoroughly by the time the tenancy ended. It did not prove that she had not been left living in damp and mouldy conditions for a few months after the roof leak. Therefore, this new evidence would not have changed the outcome of the original 20 December 2023 hearing.
The Landlord, when asked for the grounds on which it sought a rehearing, repeatedly claimed the Tribunal was wrong in fact or law, the Landlord disagrees with the Tribunal’s 20 December 2023 decision and Orders, and it wanted a second chance to present its case an alternative to applying to the District Court for an appeal.
There was no substantial miscarriage of justice. The Landlord failed to prove any of the grounds to justify me granting it a rehearing.
The original order stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Young must pay the tenant $870.44 immediately, as set out in the table in the Tribunal’s Order dated 20 December 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 December 2023, the Tribunal made an order for $850.00 exemplary damage for failure to maintain the premises and reimbursement of the $20.44 application fee.
On 8 January 2024, the Landlord made a late application for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. It had new evidence that proved the tenant lied during the 20 December 2023 hearing; b. All issues that resulted in the tenant issuing the landlord 14 day notices had been remedied; c. The leak had been fixed on the second day after the landlord had been notified; d. The Adjudicator made a decision on her own life experience and not on the facts of the case; e. The house is a brick house and was dry as the landlord did humidity tests.
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: a. The Landlord did not provide proof that there was a substantial error in process. It showed that it had not received the original tenant application on 23 October 2023 as it stated the tenant has supplied the wrong email address and an old postal address in her application. The landlord received a text notice of hearing on 9 December 2023. It contacted Tenancy Services that day and supplied the correct contact details. Tenancy Services emailed the Landlord all of the tenant’s evidence and application on 12 December 2023, being 8 days before the hearing. It had adequate time to prepare for the hearing on 20 December 2023 and did not ask for an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds it had not had sufficient time to prepare its defence; b. The Landlord did not provide any proof that the Tribunal wrongly admitted or rejected evidence during the hearing on 20 December 2023. It did try to relitigate whether the Tribunal’s findings were correct based on the evidence the Landlord submitted but did not point to any evidence wrongly admitted or rejected. The Landlord also stated it couldn’t remember if it had submitted some property inspection evidence during the hearing but argued that evidence disproved the tenant’s claims. Again this was not proof that the Tribunal wrongly admitted or rejected evidence during the 20 December 2023 hearing; c. The Landlord did not prove that the Adjudicator misconducted herself. It claimed that the Adjudicator believed the tenant and was biased towards it but did not provide any evidence the support that claim. It’s bias claim is based on it not agreeing with an example the Adjudicator gave that proved a leak can come from one point of a roof and cause a leak at another point in the house to support the assertion that the tenant made that the leak in one part of the roof was the cause of the water coming down the tenant’s bedroom wall. The Landlord did not deny there was a leak in the roof, nor that the leak caused the wet wall in the bedroom. Therefore, the Adjudicator’s example had no bearing on the Orders issued on 20 December 2023; d. The Landlord did not provide proof that it had important new evidence that was not available for the 20 December 2023 hearing. It had video and photographic evidence of the house on 20 December 2023 when it conducted its final inspection, after the hearing. It stated that this evidence showed the condition of the bedroom wall and the gap having been closed in the bedroom window by the end of the tenancy. It did not provide any proof that it had provided a dehumidifier any faster than 2 weeks after the roof leak resulted in water flowing down the bedroom wall nor did it prove that the roof of the bedroom was covered in mould as a result of the bedroom not being able to be dried out properly in the two months after the leak in the roof had been repaired. It was proof that the tenant had cleaned the mould off the roof herself and dried the premises out thoroughly by the time the tenancy ended. It did not prove that she had not been left living in damp and mouldy conditions for a few months after the roof leak. Therefore, this new evidence would not have changed the outcome of the original 20 December 2023 hearing.
The Landlord, when asked for the grounds on which it sought a rehearing, repeatedly claimed the Tribunal was wrong in fact or law, the Landlord disagrees with the Tribunal’s 20 December 2023 decision and Orders, and it wanted a second chance to present its case an alternative to applying to the District Court for an appeal.
There was no substantial miscarriage of justice. The Landlord failed to prove any of the grounds to justify me granting it a rehearing.
The original order stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697449 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697449 — 14-day notice

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