What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4790819 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4790819?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of…: $565.48 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and in…: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790819?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10721435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4790819 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4790819?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of…: $565.48 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and in…: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790819?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10721435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4790819 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790819 — net $400.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$114.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$736.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed	$565.48		Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed
Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation	$474.95		Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation
Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs		$300.00	General damages for delay in repairs
Total award	$2,340.43	$300.00
Net award	$400.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.43

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended for the landlord.
On 8 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation as outlined below: DescriptionLandlordTenant Cleaning$450.00 Rubbish removal$114.00 Lawns and Garden work$736.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed)$565.48 Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation$474.95 Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs $300.00 Total award$2,340.43$300.00 Net award$2,040.43 Bond$1,640.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$400.43
On 13 May 2024 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that I was not impartial and favoured the landlord in making the initial decision, that the landlord lied to and intentionally mislead the Tribunal, that the landlord’s witness may not have been appropriately qualified to give evidence to the Tribunal, and that the landlord failed to provide the evidence requested by the Tribunal and provided other evidence that had not been requested and to which the tenant did not have an opportunity to respond (in relation to the kitchen window).
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 tenants] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In relation to Adjudicator impartiality, the tenants referred to comments allegedly made by the landlord’s representative to the effect that she was familiar with the Tribunal and “knows Tribunal members”.
They considered that this meant that the hearing was neither impartial nor fair.
The landlord denied saying that she knew Tribunal Adjudicators. She said that she frequently encourages tenants to take applications to the Tribunal so that matters can be resolved in an appropriate forum.
Ms Oquist has possibly attended the Tribunal on other occasions, but she is otherwise completely unknown to this Adjudicator.
Therefore, the tenant has not shown that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in relation to this aspect of their claim.
There was no evidence provided to establish that the landlord had lied to or intentionally mislead the Tribunal.
I found the landlord’s evidence reliable both at the initial hearing and at the re- hearing consideration hearing.
The landlord acknowledged that she had sent through a quotation (after the hearing) dated December 2023 but said this was the only other quotation she could locate in relation to the kitchen in this property. It referred to removing and replacing the kitchen windowsill (which had been damaged by the leak).
She acknowledged that there may have been another quotation (for a greater sum and for more significant repairs) dated in or around October or November 2023 as the tenants claimed but she had been unable to locate it in her records likely because the owner had commissioned the quotation directly.
Although the property owner may have requested a quotation for more significant work on the property kitchen, the evidence provided in the hearing confirms that this work was neither completed nor required to stop the window leak.
The existence of another quotation is not material to the decision that exemplary damages are not appropriate in this case.
There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally delayed repairs. On the contrary the evidence was that repairs were completed during the tenancy (in October 2022) and additional water damage was not caused by the window leaking as the tenants claim.
The Tribunal may ask for information to be provided or confirmed after a hearing, but it is not always the case that the information is necessary to the decision. It was not necessary to the decision in this case.
As the material provided did not affect the decision, any response from the tenant would not have done so either. There is no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in regard to the provision of evidence after the hearing or the tenants’ inability to respond to it.
It was clear from the information provided by both parties at the hearing that there had been some efforts to repair the window during the tenancy. There was no intention to keep the property in a state of disrepair. There may have been uncertainty about the repair methodology, but efforts were made to make repairs and these repairs, in October 2022, were the last repairs made to prevent the window from leaking.
The tenants also referred to investigations they were conducting as to the professional standing or qualifications of the builder who gave evidence for the landlord. That witness gave factual evidence about work he had, or had not, completed at the property. His qualifications or lack thereof are not relevant to the factual evidence he provided about work that had been completed in relation to the kitchen widow.
There is no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in relation to the qualifications (or lack of) of the landlord’s witness.
The tenants were also concerned that the initial Order was released very soon after the completion of the hearing. In most cases scheduling allows an Adjudicator time to complete the Order immediately after the hearing is finished. With issues as significant as housing security it is crucial for timely access to justice that orders are provided as quickly as possible.
It is not always possible to have a decision prepared within these timeframes, but it is certainly common practise.
The application is dismissed as no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790819 — net $400.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$114.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$736.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed	$565.48		Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed
Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation	$474.95		Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation
Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs		$300.00	General damages for delay in repairs
Total award	$2,340.43	$300.00
Net award	$400.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.43

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended for the landlord.
On 8 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation as outlined below: DescriptionLandlordTenant Cleaning$450.00 Rubbish removal$114.00 Lawns and Garden work$736.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed)$565.48 Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation$474.95 Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs $300.00 Total award$2,340.43$300.00 Net award$2,040.43 Bond$1,640.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$400.43
On 13 May 2024 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that I was not impartial and favoured the landlord in making the initial decision, that the landlord lied to and intentionally mislead the Tribunal, that the landlord’s witness may not have been appropriately qualified to give evidence to the Tribunal, and that the landlord failed to provide the evidence requested by the Tribunal and provided other evidence that had not been requested and to which the tenant did not have an opportunity to respond (in relation to the kitchen window).
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 tenants] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In relation to Adjudicator impartiality, the tenants referred to comments allegedly made by the landlord’s representative to the effect that she was familiar with the Tribunal and “knows Tribunal members”.
They considered that this meant that the hearing was neither impartial nor fair.
The landlord denied saying that she knew Tribunal Adjudicators. She said that she frequently encourages tenants to take applications to the Tribunal so that matters can be resolved in an appropriate forum.
Ms Oquist has possibly attended the Tribunal on other occasions, but she is otherwise completely unknown to this Adjudicator.
Therefore, the tenant has not shown that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in relation to this aspect of their claim.
There was no evidence provided to establish that the landlord had lied to or intentionally mislead the Tribunal.
I found the landlord’s evidence reliable both at the initial hearing and at the re- hearing consideration hearing.
The landlord acknowledged that she had sent through a quotation (after the hearing) dated December 2023 but said this was the only other quotation she could locate in relation to the kitchen in this property. It referred to removing and replacing the kitchen windowsill (which had been damaged by the leak).
She acknowledged that there may have been another quotation (for a greater sum and for more significant repairs) dated in or around October or November 2023 as the tenants claimed but she had been unable to locate it in her records likely because the owner had commissioned the quotation directly.
Although the property owner may have requested a quotation for more significant work on the property kitchen, the evidence provided in the hearing confirms that this work was neither completed nor required to stop the window leak.
The existence of another quotation is not material to the decision that exemplary damages are not appropriate in this case.
There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally delayed repairs. On the contrary the evidence was that repairs were completed during the tenancy (in October 2022) and additional water damage was not caused by the window leaking as the tenants claim.
The Tribunal may ask for information to be provided or confirmed after a hearing, but it is not always the case that the information is necessary to the decision. It was not necessary to the decision in this case.
As the material provided did not affect the decision, any response from the tenant would not have done so either. There is no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in regard to the provision of evidence after the hearing or the tenants’ inability to respond to it.
It was clear from the information provided by both parties at the hearing that there had been some efforts to repair the window during the tenancy. There was no intention to keep the property in a state of disrepair. There may have been uncertainty about the repair methodology, but efforts were made to make repairs and these repairs, in October 2022, were the last repairs made to prevent the window from leaking.
The tenants also referred to investigations they were conducting as to the professional standing or qualifications of the builder who gave evidence for the landlord. That witness gave factual evidence about work he had, or had not, completed at the property. His qualifications or lack thereof are not relevant to the factual evidence he provided about work that had been completed in relation to the kitchen widow.
There is no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in relation to the qualifications (or lack of) of the landlord’s witness.
The tenants were also concerned that the initial Order was released very soon after the completion of the hearing. In most cases scheduling allows an Adjudicator time to complete the Order immediately after the hearing is finished. With issues as significant as housing security it is crucial for timely access to justice that orders are provided as quickly as possible.
It is not always possible to have a decision prepared within these timeframes, but it is certainly common practise.
The application is dismissed as no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790819 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790819 — Cleanliness

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