What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4893341 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4893341?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893341?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10982107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4893341 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4893341?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893341?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10982107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4893341 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. The landlord was represented by Ms Mohsin.
On 5 August 2024 the Tribunal made orders as follows: a. (by consent) that the landlord carry out specified work on the property; b. that the tenant’s rent be reduced by $100.00 per week to $550.00 per week until the work had been completed (as confirmed by updated Healthy Homes report); and c. awarding compensation to the tenant in the amount of $7,170.44 for failure to maintain and comply with healthy homes standards ($7,000.00), for the amount paid by the tenant for a Healthy Homes report ($150.00) and reimbursement of the filing fee ($20.44).
On 8 August 2024 the Landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that landlord wanted an opportunity to present new evidence relating to the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes standards including information regarding maintenance performed since the landlord’s initial assessment made on 27 April 2022.
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 hearing Ms Mohsin advised that there were three invoices that were not submitted at the first hearing, but that the landlord now wishes to submit and have considered, as follows: a. Invoice from Rise Property Services dated 21 June 2022; b. Invoice from SDM dated 19 October 2022; and c. Invoice from Direct Pest Control dated 23 February 2023.
All of the above invoices were available at the first hearing. In fact on reviewing the file I note that the invoice from SDM dated 19 October 2022 was in fact filed on 26 July 2024 and the Direct Pest Control invoice was filed on 29 July 2024. Both invoices were considered at the hearing. The Invoice from Rise Property Services was not filed prior to the last hearing but is not “new evidence” as there was no satisfactory reason given as to why it could not have been provided at the hearing.
I do not consider that the landlord has made out grounds for a rehearing.
It is important that parties in the Tribunal ensure that they file all evidence that they wish to have considered in time for the hearing. If, for any reason, a party is unable to file all relevant evidence prior to the scheduled hearing they are able to seek an adjournment and request further time to do so. The parties cannot assume that they will have a second opportunity to present evidence by seeking a rehearing. That would not be fair to the other party and would seriously impact the efficiency of the Tribunal.
For completeness I record that the invoices from SDM and Direct Pest Control were considered at the first hearing and were taken into account in the decision as follows: a. Direct Pest Control: The tenant acknowledged at the hearing that the landlord had sent a pest control contractor to the property. The issue at the hearing was that the pest control contractor who attended said they would need to do a repeat treatment but did not do so, and the problems continued. The tenant also served a 14 day notice regarding pest issues on 16 May 2024 but no further treatment was done. b. SDM: This invoice was specifically referred to at paragraph 12a and it was acknowledged that some work had been done towards compliance (paragraph 21).
The Rise Property Services invoice that the landlord now wishes to submit would not have affected the outcome (even if it was new evidence) because: a. The compensation awarded to the tenant for lack of amenity due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the property and comply with the Healthy Homes standards took into account a range of factors (as set out at paragraph 34 of the decision). The drainage issue of concern was the lack of proper drainage for the shower (see paragraph 22 of the decision) and not the guttering.
The landlord’s application for a re-hearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893341 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893341 — 14-day notice

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