What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776481 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications for rehearing are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4776481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776481?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10927778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776481 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications for rehearing are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4776481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776481?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10927778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Tabraham Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776481 — Healthy homes

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The female landlord (JC) represented the male landlord (RH) and the male tenant (JZ) represented the female tenant (RW).

On 17 July 2024, after hearing a claim and crossclaim, the Tribunal made an order for the landlords to pay the tenants $1,610.00. The bond of $3,000.00 was ordered to be refunded to the tenants.

On 17 July 2024 the landlords applied for a rehearing. In response to that application the tenants also applied for a rehearing. The landlords’ application

In essence the landlords claim that I incorrectly estimated the cost of rubbish removal, that I incorrectly stated that there was an intention not to provide certificates of insulation and Healthy Homes Statements, and that my finding that the tenancy was terminated without grounds did not fully appreciate or accept that the tenancy was terminated so that the landlords could accommodate her family. The tenants’ application

The tenants’ application for a rehearing is largely based on their response to the landlords’ application.

The tenants want the Tribunal to impose heavier ‘sentences’ on the awards I made against the landlord for their failure to provide insulation and Healthy Homes Statements and for terminating the tenancy without grounds. The tenants also want the Tribunal to re-visit the issues of rubbish removal, breach of quiet enjoyment, and compensation regarding water rates and labour. The law

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?

Neither party has established that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.

It seems that they both want a rehearing because they have not agreed with my decisions. That is their right but disagreeing with my findings are not grounds for a rehearing. Further, there is no new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearings.

For these reasons both their applications for a rehearing are dismissed. Award for terminating without grounds

I acknowledge that in the body of my decision made on 17 July 2024 I stated that the award of exemplary damages for this breach would be $1,500.00 but in the Order I put $1,250.00 for this breach.

In considering the draft of my order and the decisions I made, I reduced the amount from $1,500.00 to $1,250.00 but mistakenly left the higher amount in the body of my order.

The order of $1,250.00 for this breach stands. Legal names

In the tenants’ rehearing application they took issue with the landlords’ use of different names.

That issue did not form part of the original hearing and so cannot form part of a rehearing application. New claims

The tenants advised that they also wish to make new claims against the landlord.

A rehearing application hearing is not the forum in which to make new claims. C ter Haar 08 October 2024

Order

The applications for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The female landlord (JC) represented the male landlord (RH) and the male tenant (JZ) represented the female tenant (RW).
On 17 July 2024, after hearing a claim and crossclaim, the Tribunal made an order for the landlords to pay the tenants $1,610.00. The bond of $3,000.00 was ordered to be refunded to the tenants.
On 17 July 2024 the landlords applied for a rehearing. In response to that application the tenants also applied for a rehearing. The landlords’ application
In essence the landlords claim that I incorrectly estimated the cost of rubbish removal, that I incorrectly stated that there was an intention not to provide certificates of insulation and Healthy Homes Statements, and that my finding that the tenancy was terminated without grounds did not fully appreciate or accept that the tenancy was terminated so that the landlords could accommodate her family. The tenants’ application
The tenants’ application for a rehearing is largely based on their response to the landlords’ application.
The tenants want the Tribunal to impose heavier ‘sentences’ on the awards I made against the landlord for their failure to provide insulation and Healthy Homes Statements and for terminating the tenancy without grounds. The tenants also want the Tribunal to re-visit the issues of rubbish removal, breach of quiet enjoyment, and compensation regarding water rates and labour. The law
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?

Neither party has established that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.
It seems that they both want a rehearing because they have not agreed with my decisions. That is their right but disagreeing with my findings are not grounds for a rehearing. Further, there is no new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearings.
For these reasons both their applications for a rehearing are dismissed. Award for terminating without grounds
I acknowledge that in the body of my decision made on 17 July 2024 I stated that the award of exemplary damages for this breach would be $1,500.00 but in the Order I put $1,250.00 for this breach.
In considering the draft of my order and the decisions I made, I reduced the amount from $1,500.00 to $1,250.00 but mistakenly left the higher amount in the body of my order.
The order of $1,250.00 for this breach stands. Legal names
In the tenants’ rehearing application they took issue with the landlords’ use of different names.
That issue did not form part of the original hearing and so cannot form part of a rehearing application. New claims
The tenants advised that they also wish to make new claims against the landlord.
A rehearing application hearing is not the forum in which to make new claims. C ter Haar 08 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776481 — Healthy homes at 3 Tabraham Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776481 — Healthy homes at 3 Tabraham Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions