What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4887242 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4887242?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10965977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4887242 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4887242?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10965977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4887242 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Zhang and Ms Zhao represented the landlord. The tenant appeared with his wife.

On 13 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation of $690.00 for cleaning.

On 16 August 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the cleaning company who attended to do the “move out” cleaning at the end of the tenancy are prepared to give evidence that the apartment was not properly cleaned by the tenants when they left.

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 first hearing the landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $690 for cleaning which included a breakdown as follows:

The landlord did not provide any evidence in regard to the mattress, 2 chairs, 3 seaters cleaning ($200 plus GST) or carpet cleaning ($80 plus GST). With respect to the move out cleaning ($320.00 plus GST) the landlord provided a small selection of very close up photos showing the oven, rangehood extractor fan, the outside of the fridge, a close up photo of the inside of one of the shelves of the fridge, a close up photo of part of the TV cabinet, photos of the bathroom mirror and tap, a close up photo of a light or ceiling vent and two photos of a kitchen drawer showing three rubber bands inside.

The tenant provided photos taken throughout the property at the end of the tenancy (which they sent to the landlord when they vacated).

The Tribunal determined, on the basis of the evidence produced, that the tenant had left the property reasonably clean and tidy overall.

The landlord disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision and seeks a rehearing on the basis that the cleaner who attended the property at the end of the tenancy is prepared to give evidence as to the condition of the property. However that evidence was reasonably available at the first hearing. The landlord cannot now seek a rehearing to have a second opportunity to present their case.

The landlord has not established that grounds exist for a rehearing and accordingly the landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

I have carried over the suppression orders from the original hearing and so have supressed the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Zhang and Ms Zhao represented the landlord. The tenant appeared with his wife.
On 13 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation of $690.00 for cleaning.
On 16 August 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the cleaning company who attended to do the “move out” cleaning at the end of the tenancy are prepared to give evidence that the apartment was not properly cleaned by the tenants when they left.
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 first hearing the landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $690 for cleaning which included a breakdown as follows:
The landlord did not provide any evidence in regard to the mattress, 2 chairs, 3 seaters cleaning ($200 plus GST) or carpet cleaning ($80 plus GST). With respect to the move out cleaning ($320.00 plus GST) the landlord provided a small selection of very close up photos showing the oven, rangehood extractor fan, the outside of the fridge, a close up photo of the inside of one of the shelves of the fridge, a close up photo of part of the TV cabinet, photos of the bathroom mirror and tap, a close up photo of a light or ceiling vent and two photos of a kitchen drawer showing three rubber bands inside.
The tenant provided photos taken throughout the property at the end of the tenancy (which they sent to the landlord when they vacated).
The Tribunal determined, on the basis of the evidence produced, that the tenant had left the property reasonably clean and tidy overall.
The landlord disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision and seeks a rehearing on the basis that the cleaner who attended the property at the end of the tenancy is prepared to give evidence as to the condition of the property. However that evidence was reasonably available at the first hearing. The landlord cannot now seek a rehearing to have a second opportunity to present their case.
The landlord has not established that grounds exist for a rehearing and accordingly the landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
I have carried over the suppression orders from the original hearing and so have supressed the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887242 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887242 — 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