What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788121 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4788121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788121?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11207976-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788121 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4788121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788121?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11207976-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788121 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details (including the tenancy address).
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings made on 25 September 2024 is now lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. Ms Tounge represented the landlord but advised that she had limited knowledge of this matter as she has only recently started working as a property manager for the landlord. [Tenant 1] confirmed that she had authority to represent [Tenant 2].
On 19 September 2024 the Tribunal made the following work orders:
The Tribunal also made an order that the landlord must pay the tenants $5,580.44 immediately, being compensation of $5,560 for failure to maintain (in addition to compensation of $1,400 already received by the tenants by way of rent reduction) and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.
On 20 September 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The Property Manager who was responsible for presenting the landlord’s case was unable to attend due to their family member suffering a medical condition; b. An adjournment was requested; and c. The landlord was not given an opportunity to present their case.
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 applied for an adjournment on the afternoon prior to the hearing. The Tribunal made a direction that the landlord provide supporting evidence of the reason for the adjournment and explain why another property manager from Oaks Property Management Limited could not attend; b. No response was received and so the hearing proceeded; c. The landlord has now provided additional evidence regarding maintenance of the property. However all of this evidence would have been available at the date of the previous hearing (or is dated after the hearing); d. None of the evidence now provided would have affected the outcome. The Dryscan report dated 26 July 2024 confirms the tenants’ claim that there is significant water ingress and mould.
Because the landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing the stay of proceedings is now lifted. The original order dated 19 September 2024 may be enforced.
The tenants explained that the rent reduction made in the original order was only in force for one week and so they have been paying $820 per week and have made a payment today of that amount.
The landlord will need to review the rent ledger so that rent is recorded as being $700 per week from the date of the original order (and continuing until the work set out in the orders is completed as set out in Order 3 of the original orders).
I have continued the original order for name suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details (including the tenancy address).
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings made on 25 September 2024 is now lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. Ms Tounge represented the landlord but advised that she had limited knowledge of this matter as she has only recently started working as a property manager for the landlord. [Tenant 1] confirmed that she had authority to represent [Tenant 2].
On 19 September 2024 the Tribunal made the following work orders:
The Tribunal also made an order that the landlord must pay the tenants $5,580.44 immediately, being compensation of $5,560 for failure to maintain (in addition to compensation of $1,400 already received by the tenants by way of rent reduction) and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.
On 20 September 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The Property Manager who was responsible for presenting the landlord’s case was unable to attend due to their family member suffering a medical condition; b. An adjournment was requested; and c. The landlord was not given an opportunity to present their case.
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 applied for an adjournment on the afternoon prior to the hearing. The Tribunal made a direction that the landlord provide supporting evidence of the reason for the adjournment and explain why another property manager from Oaks Property Management Limited could not attend; b. No response was received and so the hearing proceeded; c. The landlord has now provided additional evidence regarding maintenance of the property. However all of this evidence would have been available at the date of the previous hearing (or is dated after the hearing); d. None of the evidence now provided would have affected the outcome. The Dryscan report dated 26 July 2024 confirms the tenants’ claim that there is significant water ingress and mould.
Because the landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing the stay of proceedings is now lifted. The original order dated 19 September 2024 may be enforced.
The tenants explained that the rent reduction made in the original order was only in force for one week and so they have been paying $820 per week and have made a payment today of that amount.
The landlord will need to review the rent ledger so that rent is recorded as being $700 per week from the date of the original order (and continuing until the work set out in the orders is completed as set out in Order 3 of the original orders).
I have continued the original order for name suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788121 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788121 — Mould & damp

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