What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700549?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4700549?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700549?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790546-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700549?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4700549?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700549?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790546-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39B Mountain Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700549 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bhana appeared for Aquastar Holdings Limited.
On 8 May 2024 the Tribunal made an Order on the following terms: a. Terminating the tenancy at 39B Mountain Road, Rotorua, and granted possession to the landlord immediately. b. Requiring the Tenants to pay $18,155.00 to the landlord after deducting compensatory awards.
The Tenants have applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had advised the Tribunal they thought the rent was too high and the Tribunal did not treat this as an application under s 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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?

There were several adjournments, some administrative and others purposeful, and I tried to give the parties as much time and guidance as I reasonably could to properly formulate their submissions and present relevant evidence.
The Tenants’ primary claim was that the premises were an unlawful residential dwelling. This was not set out clearly in their application, which dealt primarily with the condition of the property and their Healthy Homes complaints. However, a letter was provided by the Rotorua Lakes Council which raised concerns that engaged s 78 from the Tribunal’s perspective, which began the Tribunal’s inquiry.
The Tribunal is able to take an investigative approach. Section 85 of the Act allows the Tribunal to adopt an investigative process if it serves the obligation to conduct a fair and expeditious dispute resolution process: Dickson v BC 86105 [2021] NZDC 12142, declining an appeal in respect of, in part, a Tribunal’s procedure of accepting submissions after the oral hearing.
The Tribunal cannot provide more than general information about the law, or there may be a perception of advocacy, but is bound to reach conclusions on the law in respect of matters put before it: Tao v Strata Title Administration [2015] NZHC 2215
The Tenant said they thought the rent was too high, considering there was a family living on the top story of the two-storey home. The Landlord made submissions on this point, engaging in the inquiry. I told the parties about the kind of evidence which the Tribunal considered when making determinations under s 25. The Landlord offered anecdotal evidence concerning other properties in the area. In the end, the hearing took a different pathway, and we did not return to consider the Tenants’ concerns about the rent. The Tenant was, however, able to present further evidence at any of the subsequent hearings convened. The Healthy Homes report, before the Tribunal at the time the rent discussion occurred, was not probative in terms of market rent analysis.
From my perspective, there was a void in the file in terms of having adequate evidence to determine a market rent claim under s 25. However, the Tenant had, at least, an expectation that this formed part of the investigation and that I would make a finding on this point and I have to consider whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Section 25 states: 25 Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
Section 25 requires that the applicant, typically the tenant, must actively apply to the Tribunal, asserting that the rent payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. The tenant must provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that the current rent is significantly higher than what would be considered reasonable in the market for comparable properties.
The Tribunal, upon being satisfied by this evidence, has the discretion to make an order reducing the rent to an amount that aligns with the market rent.
When interpreting s 25 in conjunction with the Tribunal’s investigative function under s 85, it is important to recognise that while the Tribunal has the power to adopt an investigative approach to ensure fair and expeditious dispute resolution, it is still bound by the requirement that the tenant must clearly raise and substantiate their claim. The Tribunal cannot act as an advocate for the tenant by introducing legal claims on their behalf but can provide general information about the law. The Tribunal must assess the evidence presented and reach a conclusion on the law without overstepping its neutral role, as emphasised by the High Court in Tao v Strata Title Administration.
In practice, this means that while the Tribunal may guide the process and inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence, it cannot initiate a claim for market rent reduction under s 25 on behalf of the tenant.
The Tenant must present a clear and well-supported application, and the Tribunal's role is to assess that application within the legal framework, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural standards. If the tenant fails to provide adequate evidence or clearly articulate their claim, the Tribunal may not be able to grant the relief sought under s 25, even if the investigative approach is employed.
The request for a rehearing is declined because the Tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a market rent claim under s 25 of the Act, and the Tribunal appropriately adhered to its neutral role by not initiating or expanding upon legal claims that were not clearly articulated by the tenants during the hearing.
Despite the investigative approach permitted under s 85, I have not found a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the Tribunal’s original decision- making process. Corrigendum
Parties names have been corrected.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bhana appeared for Aquastar Holdings Limited.
On 8 May 2024 the Tribunal made an Order on the following terms: a. Terminating the tenancy at 39B Mountain Road, Rotorua, and granted possession to the landlord immediately. b. Requiring the Tenants to pay $18,155.00 to the landlord after deducting compensatory awards.
The Tenants have applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had advised the Tribunal they thought the rent was too high and the Tribunal did not treat this as an application under s 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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?

There were several adjournments, some administrative and others purposeful, and I tried to give the parties as much time and guidance as I reasonably could to properly formulate their submissions and present relevant evidence.
The Tenants’ primary claim was that the premises were an unlawful residential dwelling. This was not set out clearly in their application, which dealt primarily with the condition of the property and their Healthy Homes complaints. However, a letter was provided by the Rotorua Lakes Council which raised concerns that engaged s 78 from the Tribunal’s perspective, which began the Tribunal’s inquiry.
The Tribunal is able to take an investigative approach. Section 85 of the Act allows the Tribunal to adopt an investigative process if it serves the obligation to conduct a fair and expeditious dispute resolution process: Dickson v BC 86105 [2021] NZDC 12142, declining an appeal in respect of, in part, a Tribunal’s procedure of accepting submissions after the oral hearing.
The Tribunal cannot provide more than general information about the law, or there may be a perception of advocacy, but is bound to reach conclusions on the law in respect of matters put before it: Tao v Strata Title Administration [2015] NZHC 2215
The Tenant said they thought the rent was too high, considering there was a family living on the top story of the two-storey home. The Landlord made submissions on this point, engaging in the inquiry. I told the parties about the kind of evidence which the Tribunal considered when making determinations under s 25. The Landlord offered anecdotal evidence concerning other properties in the area. In the end, the hearing took a different pathway, and we did not return to consider the Tenants’ concerns about the rent. The Tenant was, however, able to present further evidence at any of the subsequent hearings convened. The Healthy Homes report, before the Tribunal at the time the rent discussion occurred, was not probative in terms of market rent analysis.
From my perspective, there was a void in the file in terms of having adequate evidence to determine a market rent claim under s 25. However, the Tenant had, at least, an expectation that this formed part of the investigation and that I would make a finding on this point and I have to consider whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Section 25 states: 25 Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
Section 25 requires that the applicant, typically the tenant, must actively apply to the Tribunal, asserting that the rent payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. The tenant must provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that the current rent is significantly higher than what would be considered reasonable in the market for comparable properties.
The Tribunal, upon being satisfied by this evidence, has the discretion to make an order reducing the rent to an amount that aligns with the market rent.
When interpreting s 25 in conjunction with the Tribunal’s investigative function under s 85, it is important to recognise that while the Tribunal has the power to adopt an investigative approach to ensure fair and expeditious dispute resolution, it is still bound by the requirement that the tenant must clearly raise and substantiate their claim. The Tribunal cannot act as an advocate for the tenant by introducing legal claims on their behalf but can provide general information about the law. The Tribunal must assess the evidence presented and reach a conclusion on the law without overstepping its neutral role, as emphasised by the High Court in Tao v Strata Title Administration.
In practice, this means that while the Tribunal may guide the process and inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence, it cannot initiate a claim for market rent reduction under s 25 on behalf of the tenant.
The Tenant must present a clear and well-supported application, and the Tribunal's role is to assess that application within the legal framework, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural standards. If the tenant fails to provide adequate evidence or clearly articulate their claim, the Tribunal may not be able to grant the relief sought under s 25, even if the investigative approach is employed.
The request for a rehearing is declined because the Tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a market rent claim under s 25 of the Act, and the Tribunal appropriately adhered to its neutral role by not initiating or expanding upon legal claims that were not clearly articulated by the tenants during the hearing.
Despite the investigative approach permitted under s 85, I have not found a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the Tribunal’s original decision- making process. Corrigendum
Parties names have been corrected.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700549 — Healthy homes at 39B Mountain Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700549 — Healthy homes at 39B Mountain Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

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