What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888760 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4888760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888760?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11441110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888760 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4888760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888760?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11441110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4888760 — Cleanliness

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 13 February 2025 via telephone. The landlord attended the hearing. Only one of the tenants attended the hearing. However, that tenant confirmed that he had authority to speak on the other tenants’ behalf.
The landlord has applied for a rehearing of the landlord’s claims, other than the cleaning claim, which were heard at Waitakere District Court on 09 September 2024. 1 Relevant law:
Section 105(1) of the 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”. 1 The Order was issued on 13 September 2024.
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. Relevant background:
The background of this matter is as follows. a. On 13 September 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order upholding the tenant’s claim for refund of the bond and dismissing the landlord’s claims for compensation; b. On 18 September 2024, the landlord submitted an application for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had or may have occurred (the “First Application for a Rehearing”); c. On 23 October 2024, following a hearing to decide if the First Application for a Rehearing should be granted, this Tribunal issued an Order granting a rehearing in respect of the cleaning claim only. The Adjudicator dismissed the other claims in the First Application for a Rehearing stating: I dismiss the application for a re-hearing on the other matters, being damage to the lawns, damage to kitchen handles and compensation for pest control. The landlord’s submissions on these issues were essentially a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact. The new evidence submitted in relation to the kitchen handles was reasonably available at the first hearing, and the landlord is not permitted to re-litigate the issues by way of a re-hearing. d. On 29 November 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order in respect of the cleaning claim; e. On 17 December 2024, the landlord submitted a further application for a rehearing in respect of the original hearing. The landlord wrote: Despite having a piece of clear evidence and even acceptance from the tenants that they broke the kitchen handles, it was ruled as a normal wear and tear. Similarly, for the pest control: I provided photo evidence proving tenants did not maintain the needed hygiene which resulted in pests within the house, and there having the landlord to do the pest control 3 times in 1 year. I also provided the proof that tenants were not maintaining the lawns as required by the tenancy law, which caused the lawn to die. The tenants agreed to pay for the cost & I submitted the proof of the chat, the but the tenants refused to pay the cost during the hearing and my proof was disregarded. Some of the proof was not available on the day of the hearing later and was provided later on as requested by adjudicator but all proof was provided well before time.
On 13 February 2025, I heard the landlord’s application for a rehearing via a telephone hearing. Analysis:
Res judicata is a legal principle that provides once a matter is resolved, it cannot be revised. Doing so constitutes an abuse of process, and the party seeking to do so should be estopped or barred from doing so. This principle remains good law, as affirmed in Muir, Bradbury, Peebles, and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZHC 792.
The grounds of this application are essentially the same as the First Application for a Rehearing. The First Application for a Rehearing (other than the cleaning claim) was dismissed by this Tribunal on 23 October 2024. I find that the Tribunal is estopped from deciding on whether a rehearing should be granted on these matters, res judicata, having already been decided in an earlier Tribunal decision.
Even if the Tribunal were not estopped from further considering the matter, I would not have granted the application for a rehearing for the following reasons: a. I do not consider the grounds for a rehearing have been met: i. The landlord has not provided any additional evidence that was not reasonably available to him prior to the hearing on 09 September 2024. The landlord said that he is concerned the Tribunal may not have received or considered the additional evidence provided following the hearing. However, records show that the additional evidence was received by the Tribunal prior to the decision being issued and the landlord has not put forward any compelling evidence to suggest that this information was not available to or considered by the Adjudicator prior to the Order being made; and ii. The landlord has said the Tribunal finding that the damage door handles were normal wear and tear was a miscarriage of justice as the tenants had admitted to causing the damage. This is essentially a compliant that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its finding or fact and it is not open to the landlord to re-litigate this by way of a rehearing. b. The application for a rehearing is significantly out of time. The Order dismissing the claims (apart from the cleaning matter) in the First Application for a Rehearing was issued on 23 October 2024. Any application for a further rehearing should have been made within 5 working days after that date. The application was not made until 17 December 2024, some 38 working days following the Order. At the hearing, the landlord said he failed to comply with the time limit because he was confused and did not realise the other claims in the First Application for a Rehearing had been dismissed until he received the Order of 29 November 2024. I do not consider the landlord that is a good reason for failing to comply with the time limit. Non-publication:
I order non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details of preserve the Tribunal’s earlier non-publication order. 2

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 13 February 2025 via telephone. The landlord attended the hearing. Only one of the tenants attended the hearing. However, that tenant confirmed that he had authority to speak on the other tenants’ behalf.
The landlord has applied for a rehearing of the landlord’s claims, other than the cleaning claim, which were heard at Waitakere District Court on 09 September 2024. 1 Relevant law:
Section 105(1) of the 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”. 1 The Order was issued on 13 September 2024.
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. Relevant background:
The background of this matter is as follows. a. On 13 September 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order upholding the tenant’s claim for refund of the bond and dismissing the landlord’s claims for compensation; b. On 18 September 2024, the landlord submitted an application for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had or may have occurred (the “First Application for a Rehearing”); c. On 23 October 2024, following a hearing to decide if the First Application for a Rehearing should be granted, this Tribunal issued an Order granting a rehearing in respect of the cleaning claim only. The Adjudicator dismissed the other claims in the First Application for a Rehearing stating: I dismiss the application for a re-hearing on the other matters, being damage to the lawns, damage to kitchen handles and compensation for pest control. The landlord’s submissions on these issues were essentially a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact. The new evidence submitted in relation to the kitchen handles was reasonably available at the first hearing, and the landlord is not permitted to re-litigate the issues by way of a re-hearing. d. On 29 November 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order in respect of the cleaning claim; e. On 17 December 2024, the landlord submitted a further application for a rehearing in respect of the original hearing. The landlord wrote: Despite having a piece of clear evidence and even acceptance from the tenants that they broke the kitchen handles, it was ruled as a normal wear and tear. Similarly, for the pest control: I provided photo evidence proving tenants did not maintain the needed hygiene which resulted in pests within the house, and there having the landlord to do the pest control 3 times in 1 year. I also provided the proof that tenants were not maintaining the lawns as required by the tenancy law, which caused the lawn to die. The tenants agreed to pay for the cost & I submitted the proof of the chat, the but the tenants refused to pay the cost during the hearing and my proof was disregarded. Some of the proof was not available on the day of the hearing later and was provided later on as requested by adjudicator but all proof was provided well before time.
On 13 February 2025, I heard the landlord’s application for a rehearing via a telephone hearing. Analysis:
Res judicata is a legal principle that provides once a matter is resolved, it cannot be revised. Doing so constitutes an abuse of process, and the party seeking to do so should be estopped or barred from doing so. This principle remains good law, as affirmed in Muir, Bradbury, Peebles, and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZHC 792.
The grounds of this application are essentially the same as the First Application for a Rehearing. The First Application for a Rehearing (other than the cleaning claim) was dismissed by this Tribunal on 23 October 2024. I find that the Tribunal is estopped from deciding on whether a rehearing should be granted on these matters, res judicata, having already been decided in an earlier Tribunal decision.
Even if the Tribunal were not estopped from further considering the matter, I would not have granted the application for a rehearing for the following reasons: a. I do not consider the grounds for a rehearing have been met: i. The landlord has not provided any additional evidence that was not reasonably available to him prior to the hearing on 09 September 2024. The landlord said that he is concerned the Tribunal may not have received or considered the additional evidence provided following the hearing. However, records show that the additional evidence was received by the Tribunal prior to the decision being issued and the landlord has not put forward any compelling evidence to suggest that this information was not available to or considered by the Adjudicator prior to the Order being made; and ii. The landlord has said the Tribunal finding that the damage door handles were normal wear and tear was a miscarriage of justice as the tenants had admitted to causing the damage. This is essentially a compliant that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its finding or fact and it is not open to the landlord to re-litigate this by way of a rehearing. b. The application for a rehearing is significantly out of time. The Order dismissing the claims (apart from the cleaning matter) in the First Application for a Rehearing was issued on 23 October 2024. Any application for a further rehearing should have been made within 5 working days after that date. The application was not made until 17 December 2024, some 38 working days following the Order. At the hearing, the landlord said he failed to comply with the time limit because he was confused and did not realise the other claims in the First Application for a Rehearing had been dismissed until he received the Order of 29 November 2024. I do not consider the landlord that is a good reason for failing to comply with the time limit. Non-publication:
I order non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details of preserve the Tribunal’s earlier non-publication order. 2

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888760 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888760 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions