What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819192 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 4819192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819192?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819192 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 4819192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819192?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819192 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing (4819192) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing application (4819192). The Landlord/owner attended the hearing in person with a Mandarin interpreter.
The Property Manager filed the original application however failed to attend the actual hearing in person. On the same day, the Landlord’s application was heard (4728809) before this application was heard. The Landlord then remained in the hearing in person.
The Property Manager did not request to attend the hearing by telephone or video or seek an adjournment before the hearing. The Property Manager was not present at the start of the hearing so the Tribunal called the Property Manager.
The Landlord was present during the hearing however it was the Property Manager that presented the application over the phone.
On 10 September 2024, the Tribunal made an Order dismissing the Property Manager’s claims for compensation.
On 13 September 2024, the Landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a) The Landlord had other claims that were not considered on the day b) The Landlord had insufficient time to consider the Tenant’s evidence on the day c) The Landlord had not seen all of the Tenant’s photographs d) The Tenant’s photographs were not time and date stamped which was a requirement for the Landlord e) The hearing notice provided to the Landlord and the Property Manager was confusing so the Property Manager were not adequately prepared f) The Order indicated that claim about the door was not raised in the hearing yet it was.
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.
The Property Manager, not the Landlord, filed this application for a rehearing.
The Landlord claimed at the end of the hearing, there were still additional claims to be addressed but she was advised that “all the claims were already received in the system”. The Landlord submitted the list of claims did not fully reflect all the claims of her original application. The additional claims included damages to the laundry venetian blinds, doors, door frames, tiles, laundry door and house cleaning and blind cleaning.
The landlord referred to the Tribunals reasoning for not allowing the additional claims to be heard. This was that the Tenants would not have had sufficient notice to prepare a response if the additional claims allowed to be heard on the day. The Landlord submitted that the Tenants were aware of these claims before the Tribunal hearing through the parties earlier discussions. It was nothing new to them.
The Landlord submitted there were also invoices for the door frames and blinds which were submitted but were not raised during the hearing.
The Tenant submitted the Property Manager’s application only listed a few claims, such as damage to the door, wall, carpet, rubbish, and lawn. The Tenant received the Landlord’s claim list previously and she submitted the Landlord was attempting to bring additional claims because they were overlooked by the Property Manager. The Tenant submitted the Property Manager’s case only outlined four or five specific points. The Tribunal thoroughly reviewed everything in the original application.
In considering the evidence, I do not accept the Landlord’s submissions that the additional claims were not considered by the Tribunal. The Property Manager filed this application and failed to include the claims the Landlord wanted in the application. The Landlord had her own list of claims she wanted heard however she should have relayed this to the Property Manager before the hearing. It would be unfair for the Tribunal to hear all these additional claims on the day of the hearing because the Tenants needed time to prepare a response.
The Property Manager did not raise that he had any additional claims at the hearing. It seems the Landlord is seeking a second chance to present the Property Manager’s application, which she was dissatisfied with. This is not grounds for a rehearing.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed the Property Manager missed seeing some photos presented by the Tenant. The Landlord saw the photos during the hearing and had the opportunity to provide her views but did not. If more time was needed, the Landlord should have requested it at the hearing, not after.
This claim is dismissed.
The Landlord submitted the Tenants presented a quote for refurbishing the doors and door frames however the Property Manager did not have an opportunity to consider it.
The Tenant submitted that the Property Manager was given this quote at the first hearing in January 2024 but the Landlord was not present at the time.
While the Property Manager was absent, the Landlord was present to observe and respond to the Tenant’s quote. It is standard practice for quotes to be presented on the hearing day, and the Landlord had the opportunity to request more time. The Landlord should have also been prepared to respond.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed they had not seen the Tenants photos which were submitted during the hearing however when asked by the Tribunal, what photographs the Landlord was referring to, the Landlord stated she did not know but saw it raised in the Order.
The Tenant submitted that there were photos on her desk during the hearing, but she did not recall them being raised at the hearing or submitting them.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord’s claim is vague. Despite being given the opportunity at the hearing, the Landlord never mentioned not seeing the photographs the Tenant submitted to the Adjudicator. It is standard practice for the Court Clerk to show the photographs to the parties before presenting them to the Adjudicator.
The Landlord also submitted that both parties should have been required to submit photographs with dates and time stamps. The Landlord did not specifically state which of the Tenants photographs lacked a date or time stamp.
In considering the evidence, without being able to specifically point to the Tenants photo evidence that was lacking data, I cannot agree with the Landlord’s claim.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed the Property Manager did not have enough time to review the case as the hearing was conducted over the phone. He could not present effectively. The Property Manager also did not have their quotes or labelling ready which caused issues.
The Tenant clarified that all the photos the Tenant’s had filed were submitted to the Landlord by the end of last year or early this year. The claim that the Property Manager could not present their case is inaccurate. The Property Manager would have received all the relevant emails for this Tribunal hearing. If he was not available for the hearing, the Landlord should have confirmed this in advance however it appears the Landlord was attempting to use his failure to attend in person as an excuse for the lack of preparation.
In considering the evidence, the Property Manager should have been present in person at the hearing as this was how the hearing was conducted. I do not accept that the Property Manager was confused given he is a professional real estate agent so he ought to have been aware of the hearing date or how to make enquiries if he was confused. I am inclined to agree with the Tenant’s submission that the Landlord is attempting to use the Property Manager’s failure to attend in person as an excuse and a second opportunity for her to present the case. I find that now that she has had the benefit of reading the Orders and understanding why the claims were dismissed, she has gathered evidence to address those reasons and seeks to present them again. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The Landlord raised in the Orders that it mentioned the doors were not raised in the hearing, however they were.
In considering the evidence, this factor is not a sufficient reason to grant a rehearing.
The claim is dismissed.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
As the Tenants have been successful, their names remain suppressed. As the Landlord has not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819192 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819192 — Cleanliness

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