What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4848260 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4848260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848260?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4848260 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4848260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848260?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4848260 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The order dated 7 th June 2024 stands except that the Bond Centre must not release the bond to the parties until Friday 16 th August 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 st July 2024.
The landlord attended via teleconference and the tenant attended in person. The tenant was assisted by an Arabic interpreter.
On 7 th June 2024, the Tribunal made an order granting the tenant $3,800.00 as compensation for the loss of the use of the heat pump for 19 weeks.
On 13 th June 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that essentially that 19 weeks was too long and $200.00 per week was too much as compensation for the loss of use of the heat pump.
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 4848260, 48416432 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.
The landlord’s main point for the rehearing request was that a rent reduction of $50 to $100 was more appropriate rather than $200 per week for the loss of use of the heat pump. The landlord based this on other rental properties and average household’s power bills.
Furthermore, the landlord said that 19 weeks was too long as there were delays that were attributed to the tenant not communicating with the contractors or the landlord. The 19 weeks included a period when the tenant had already vacated.
The landlord pointed out that there was wrong information regarding paragraph 7 and 8 of the original order. The original order noted that the landlord requested for the tenant to find replacement tenants for the premises if the tenant wished to end the tenancy earlier, and the tenant not finding any replacements. I had recalled that part in the oral evidence but it could have been a mistake on my part. The discrepancies in the background information does not materially affect the original decision.
The landlord’s points are that the compensation per week and the period of compensation were excessive. They are issues for an appeal and not grounds for a rehearing. Therefore, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
In order to preserve the landlord’s position for an appeal, I order that the bond not be released until after the appeal period has passed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 st July 2024.

The landlord attended via teleconference and the tenant attended in person. The tenant was assisted by an Arabic interpreter.

On 7 th June 2024, the Tribunal made an order granting the tenant $3,800.00 as compensation for the loss of the use of the heat pump for 19 weeks.

On 13 th June 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that essentially that 19 weeks was too long and $200.00 per week was too much as compensation for the loss of use of the heat pump.

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 4848260, 48416432 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.

The landlord’s main point for the rehearing request was that a rent reduction of $50 to $100 was more appropriate rather than $200 per week for the loss of use of the heat pump. The landlord based this on other rental properties and average household’s power bills.

Furthermore, the landlord said that 19 weeks was too long as there were delays that were attributed to the tenant not communicating with the contractors or the landlord. The 19 weeks included a period when the tenant had already vacated.

The landlord pointed out that there was wrong information regarding paragraph 7 and 8 of the original order. The original order noted that the landlord requested for the tenant to find replacement tenants for the premises if the tenant wished to end the tenancy earlier, and the tenant not finding any replacements. I had recalled that part in the oral evidence but it could have been a mistake on my part. The discrepancies in the background information does not materially affect the original decision.

The landlord’s points are that the compensation per week and the period of compensation were excessive. They are issues for an appeal and not grounds for a rehearing. Therefore, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

In order to preserve the landlord’s position for an appeal, I order that the bond not be released until after the appeal period has passed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848260 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848260 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions