What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823817 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 4823817?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823817?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704586-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823817 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 4823817?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823817?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704586-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823817 — 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 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing-consideration hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 5 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order for cleaning costs and compensation against the tenant.
On 11 July 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “The adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence”.
At today’s hearing, the tenant stated that when she submitted her application to Tenancy Services, she had also uploaded an invoice for $170.00 from [cleaning company] for cleaning the bathroom. This was the evidence that the tenant says was improperly rejected.
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?

At the hearing on 5 July 2024, the tenant did not refer to the invoice for $170.00 from [cleaning company] for cleaning the bathroom: Even though this information was part of the tenant’s application, it was never introduced as information in the hearing. The information was therefore not excluded. Nor is this information that was unavailable at the original hearing and should therefore be granted a rehearing so it can be admitted.
Importantly however, and in the alternative, that is to say even if the information was ruled to have been introduced but overlooked at the original hearing, it is not information that could have affected the outcome of the hearing.
At today’s hearing the landlord stated that the landlord never disputed that the tenant had got a professional cleaner in to clean the bathroom; the application for cleaning that the landlord made was for cleaning the laundry and kitchen.
When I look at the photos the landlord produced at the hearing on 5 July 2024 I see an apartment that has not been left reasonably clean and tidy.
The invoice that the landlord produced was for cleaning the whole apartment, including the bathroom. The alternative to this may have been for the landlord to instruct the cleaners to clean the whole apartment except for the bathroom. This would have been an unusual approach. I accept that a professional cleaner will focus their attention on the areas most in need of cleaning, but take responsibility for the whole area.
The view I formed at the hearing on 5 July 2024 was that the cleaning bill from [cleaning company] of $235.75 was justified by the condition the apartment was left in, whether or not the tenant had employed cleaners prior. My view would be no different if an invoice for cleaning the bathroom had been presented at that hearing. Therefore, the tenant’s information which she claims was improperly rejected could not have affected the outcome of the hearing.
For these reasons I conclude a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has not occurred. Therefore the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

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 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing-consideration hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 5 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order for cleaning costs and compensation against the tenant.
On 11 July 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “The adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence”.
At today’s hearing, the tenant stated that when she submitted her application to Tenancy Services, she had also uploaded an invoice for $170.00 from [cleaning company] for cleaning the bathroom. This was the evidence that the tenant says was improperly rejected.
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?

At the hearing on 5 July 2024, the tenant did not refer to the invoice for $170.00 from [cleaning company] for cleaning the bathroom: Even though this information was part of the tenant’s application, it was never introduced as information in the hearing. The information was therefore not excluded. Nor is this information that was unavailable at the original hearing and should therefore be granted a rehearing so it can be admitted.
Importantly however, and in the alternative, that is to say even if the information was ruled to have been introduced but overlooked at the original hearing, it is not information that could have affected the outcome of the hearing.
At today’s hearing the landlord stated that the landlord never disputed that the tenant had got a professional cleaner in to clean the bathroom; the application for cleaning that the landlord made was for cleaning the laundry and kitchen.
When I look at the photos the landlord produced at the hearing on 5 July 2024 I see an apartment that has not been left reasonably clean and tidy.
The invoice that the landlord produced was for cleaning the whole apartment, including the bathroom. The alternative to this may have been for the landlord to instruct the cleaners to clean the whole apartment except for the bathroom. This would have been an unusual approach. I accept that a professional cleaner will focus their attention on the areas most in need of cleaning, but take responsibility for the whole area.
The view I formed at the hearing on 5 July 2024 was that the cleaning bill from [cleaning company] of $235.75 was justified by the condition the apartment was left in, whether or not the tenant had employed cleaners prior. My view would be no different if an invoice for cleaning the bathroom had been presented at that hearing. Therefore, the tenant’s information which she claims was improperly rejected could not have affected the outcome of the hearing.
For these reasons I conclude a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has not occurred. Therefore the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823817 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823817 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 809, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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