What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845884?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4845884?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845884?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637047-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845884?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4845884?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845884?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637047-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Delph Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845884 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Mr Clark attended as did Mr Wongeoon for the landlord.

On 24 January 2025, the Tribunal made an order on both applications. It awarded the landlord rent arrears and the bond of $1,900.00 and awarded the tenant compensation for mould and delayed repairs of $1,000.00.

Both parties have applied for a rehearing of the orders made.

The tenant argues that he has no liability for rent arrears due to the landlord not complying with section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant; and that he never received a bond number once he became a tenant.

The landlord says the bond deduction should only be $1,250.00, not $1,900.00, because he refunded part of the bond to a tenant who vacated before the end of the tenancy. The law on rehearings

The law as it relates to rehearings is set out in section 105(1) RTA. The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or by a witness. The words also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons. First, the strength of the language in s105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies an obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

I have quoted from these decisions to assist both parties to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons neither party has established grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant’s submission that section 13A RTA would somehow operate to prevent the payment of rent if not complied with is simply wrong.

Section 13A RTA addresses the contents of a tenancy agreement. If not complied with the Tribunal may award exemplary damages; but non-compliance (either with section 13A RTA or with a landlord’s section 45 RTA requirement to ensure the premises are HHS compliant) does not change the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.

I addressed the HHS status of the premises and the alleged failure to provide disclosure of the HHS status of the premises in my decision. A rehearing is not granted to allow a party the chance to address those issues again.

The issue of Mr Clark not being provided with a bond number is not a matter that would be the subject of a rehearing. The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre and was protected. He could have contacted the Bond Centre to find out the bond number assigned.

The sole issue put forward by Mr Wongeoon was his belief that the bond deduction should only be $1,250.00, not $1,900.00.

The bond attaches to the tenancy. As I explained in the decision, if Mr Wongeoon believes he is owed money from a former tenant to whom he paid some of the bond, that is a dispute between him and that person.

I addressed this issue at the hearing and in paragraphs 18 to 25 of my decision when dealing with the rent arrears claim. A rehearing is not granted to allow a party a second chance to argue their case. Result

Neither party has put forward any grounds to persuade the Tribunal that they should be granted a rehearing. Each wants to argue again matters that were heard and decided at the substantive hearing.

As the case law to which I have referred makes clear, a rehearing addresses defects in procedure. Here, there were none. Both parties attended the hearing, gave evidence, and made submissions.

That they might not agree with the decision is a ground for an appeal, but not for a rehearing.

Both applications for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Mr Clark attended as did Mr Wongeoon for the landlord.

Both parties have applied for a rehearing of the orders made.

The landlord says the bond deduction should only be $1,250.00, not $1,900.00, because he refunded part of the bond to a tenant who vacated before the end of the tenancy. The law on rehearings

I have quoted from these decisions to assist both parties to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons neither party has established grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant’s submission that section 13A RTA would somehow operate to prevent the payment of rent if not complied with is simply wrong.

The sole issue put forward by Mr Wongeoon was his belief that the bond deduction should only be $1,250.00, not $1,900.00.

Neither party has put forward any grounds to persuade the Tribunal that they should be granted a rehearing. Each wants to argue again matters that were heard and decided at the substantive hearing.

As the case law to which I have referred makes clear, a rehearing addresses defects in procedure. Here, there were none. Both parties attended the hearing, gave evidence, and made submissions.

That they might not agree with the decision is a ground for an appeal, but not for a rehearing.

Both applications for rehearing are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845884 — Rent arrears at 9 Delph Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845884 — Rent arrears at 9 Delph Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions