What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4867020 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 4867020?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $130.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867020?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4867020 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 4867020?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $130.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867020?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867020 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867020 — net $305.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (to 07/08/23	$130.56	Water rates (to 07/08/23
Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred	$175.00	Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred
Net award	$305.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$305.56

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 4 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: a. [The tenant] to pay Wendy McMahon $305.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Water rates (to 07/08/23) $130.56 Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred)$175.00 Total award $305.56 Bond$305.56 $2,494.44 b. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6224574-005) immediatelyapportioned as follows: Wendy McMahon: $305.56 and [the tenant]: $2,494.44

On 10 October 2024 [the tenant] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She was denied the opportunity to put her breach of quiet enjoyment claim to me during the hearing because of the landlord talking over her and engaging in aggressive and hostile communication (at points using explicit language directed at her) with the intention of intimidating and harassing her so she could not make her points to prove her claim; b. While attempting to make her points or defend herself, the landlord would argue back or totally dismiss what she had to say without interjection from the tenant; c. The tenant felt incredibly intimidated, bullied, criticised, belittled and harassed to the point where she could not respond or make her point without interruption, and d. The landlord intimidated her to the point where she felt unable to pursue her claim of breach of quiet enjoyment and felt forced to withdraw it during the hearing.

In addition, the tenant claims I told her during the hearing that I had not reviewed the documents she had prepared at her own cost (solicitor-client) which was very disappointing to her. I confirm that I had some technological issues the morning of the hearing, which meant I had only had time to read the applications and the tenant’s lawyer’s submissions and supporting documents prior to the hearing. I had been unable to review the remaining supporting documents prior to the hearing. I did however review these documents during the hearing, discussed them with the parties and had read them all prior to making any decision in relation to the claims or writing the Order.

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?

The tenant put the basis for her quiet enjoyment claim to the Tribunal and the landlord responded to the tenant’s reasons for requesting a rehearing of her quiet enjoyment claim.

After traversing the basis for the tenant’s quiet enjoyment claim in more depth than we had in the original 4 October 2024 hearing, I informed the tenant she had not provided sufficient evidence to support a successful claim, on the balance of probabilities, for compensation or exemplary damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment and privacy.

The tenant confirmed she was suffering deep grief after losing her beloved father at the time of the last hearing, and the landlord’s personal comments and overtalking had left her unable to make her voice heard. That was the catalyst for the partial rehearing application. Further , the tenant confirmed she withdrew her rehearing application and was agreeable to abiding by my original 4 October 20204 Order.

For all the reasons set out above, the application for rehearing of her quiet enjoyment claim is withdrawn and the 4 October 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867020 — net $305.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (to 07/08/23	$130.56	Water rates (to 07/08/23
Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred	$175.00	Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred
Net award	$305.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$305.56

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 of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment claim is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 4 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: a. [The tenant] to pay Wendy McMahon $305.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Water rates (to 07/08/23) $130.56 Cleaning (based o 50% of the cost incurred)$175.00 Total award $305.56 Bond$305.56 $2,494.44 b. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6224574-005) immediatelyapportioned as follows: Wendy McMahon: $305.56 and [the tenant]: $2,494.44
On 10 October 2024 [the tenant] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She was denied the opportunity to put her breach of quiet enjoyment claim to me during the hearing because of the landlord talking over her and engaging in aggressive and hostile communication (at points using explicit language directed at her) with the intention of intimidating and harassing her so she could not make her points to prove her claim; b. While attempting to make her points or defend herself, the landlord would argue back or totally dismiss what she had to say without interjection from the tenant; c. The tenant felt incredibly intimidated, bullied, criticised, belittled and harassed to the point where she could not respond or make her point without interruption, and d. The landlord intimidated her to the point where she felt unable to pursue her claim of breach of quiet enjoyment and felt forced to withdraw it during the hearing.
In addition, the tenant claims I told her during the hearing that I had not reviewed the documents she had prepared at her own cost (solicitor-client) which was very disappointing to her. I confirm that I had some technological issues the morning of the hearing, which meant I had only had time to read the applications and the tenant’s lawyer’s submissions and supporting documents prior to the hearing. I had been unable to review the remaining supporting documents prior to the hearing. I did however review these documents during the hearing, discussed them with the parties and had read them all prior to making any decision in relation to the claims or writing the Order.
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?

The tenant put the basis for her quiet enjoyment claim to the Tribunal and the landlord responded to the tenant’s reasons for requesting a rehearing of her quiet enjoyment claim.
After traversing the basis for the tenant’s quiet enjoyment claim in more depth than we had in the original 4 October 2024 hearing, I informed the tenant she had not provided sufficient evidence to support a successful claim, on the balance of probabilities, for compensation or exemplary damages for a breach of her quiet enjoyment and privacy.
The tenant confirmed she was suffering deep grief after losing her beloved father at the time of the last hearing, and the landlord’s personal comments and overtalking had left her unable to make her voice heard. That was the catalyst for the partial rehearing application. Further , the tenant confirmed she withdrew her rehearing application and was agreeable to abiding by my original 4 October 20204 Order.
For all the reasons set out above, the application for rehearing of her quiet enjoyment claim is withdrawn and the 4 October 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867020 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867020 — 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