What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903534 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 4903534?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903534?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12141523-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903534 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 4903534?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903534?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12141523-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903534 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 21 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order awarding both the Landlord and Tenant compensation.
On 28 March 2025, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Plumber who carried out the plumbing was not licensed, the Landlord claimed she had not travelled to [Country] in 24 years which was incorrect, the house structure had been compromised since the start of the tenancy, some evidence was not raised at the hearing including smoke alarms and missing ground barriers. There was evidence from the Healthy Homes Inspection report that the HRV filter was actually missing. The Tenant’s had new evidence of extreme stress, there was no ground moisture barrier, the insulation was not installed by professionals and the compliance report is incorrectly dated.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tenant has not proved grounds for a rehearing.
Following the hearing, the Tenant found further evidence to support their submission that the Landlord’s plumber was unlicensed. However, the Tribunal determined that the leaks constituted a failure by the Landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Plumber’s lack of qualification does not alter this finding or affect the amount awarded.
The Landlord’s travel overseas in 2019 contradicts her claim of not having seen her family in ten years. Nonetheless, this would not have changed the Tribunal's finding regarding the Landlord’s intent to breach.
A typographical error in the Compliance Team's report was acknowledged and accepted by the Tribunal. It does not affect the Tribunal’s findings.
The new evidence provided by the Landlord from the structural engineer is based on third-party reports and photographs rather than a personal inspection. No details of those materials were submitted at the hearing, and this evidence should have been filed then. It does not alter the Tribunal’s conclusions.
The Tenants claimed evidence regarding missing smoke alarms and a missing ground moisture barrier was dismissed or they were not given an opportunity to discuss this claim at the hearing. At the hearing this was raised as part of a Healthy Homes Standards claim, not as compensation. If the Tenant intended to seek compensation, this was not clearly stated at the hearing and the Tribunal had worked off the list provided by the Tenant. They were asked at the end of the hearing if the last claim regarding failure to appoint an agent was their last claim. They confirmed it was the last claim. Upon reviewing the recording of the hearing, it is noted they stated they were going to raise minor incidental claims but then decided not to proceed. These were in regards to guttering causing water ingress and a leaking garage roof causing damage.
The Tenants raised there was no filter in the HRV system which was noted in the Healthy Homes Standards inspection. This is a further attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s findings of fact and is not a sufficient ground for rehearing.
New evidence of [Tenant 1]’s stress is based on her reports to a medical professional. The Tribunal already considered this and balanced it against other factors, including the timing of the application. This evidence does not warrant a rehearing and should have been presented earlier.
New evidence regarding holes in the hallway should have been submitted at the hearing and does not affect the outcome.
The Landlord contends a video could not be viewed at the hearing. The Tenants were given the opportunity to view it at the hearing and raised no issues at the time they had no access to it. No video from the landlord was submitted post- hearing. It is unclear what the Tenants now refer to as evidence submitted after the hearing.
For these reasons, the Tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 21 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order awarding both the Landlord and Tenant compensation.
On 28 March 2025, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Plumber who carried out the plumbing was not licensed, the Landlord claimed she had not travelled to [Country] in 24 years which was incorrect, the house structure had been compromised since the start of the tenancy, some evidence was not raised at the hearing including smoke alarms and missing ground barriers. There was evidence from the Healthy Homes Inspection report that the HRV filter was actually missing. The Tenant’s had new evidence of extreme stress, there was no ground moisture barrier, the insulation was not installed by professionals and the compliance report is incorrectly dated.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tenant has not proved grounds for a rehearing.
Following the hearing, the Tenant found further evidence to support their submission that the Landlord’s plumber was unlicensed. However, the Tribunal determined that the leaks constituted a failure by the Landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Plumber’s lack of qualification does not alter this finding or affect the amount awarded.
The Landlord’s travel overseas in 2019 contradicts her claim of not having seen her family in ten years. Nonetheless, this would not have changed the Tribunal's finding regarding the Landlord’s intent to breach.
A typographical error in the Compliance Team's report was acknowledged and accepted by the Tribunal. It does not affect the Tribunal’s findings.
The new evidence provided by the Landlord from the structural engineer is based on third-party reports and photographs rather than a personal inspection. No details of those materials were submitted at the hearing, and this evidence should have been filed then. It does not alter the Tribunal’s conclusions.
The Tenants claimed evidence regarding missing smoke alarms and a missing ground moisture barrier was dismissed or they were not given an opportunity to discuss this claim at the hearing. At the hearing this was raised as part of a Healthy Homes Standards claim, not as compensation. If the Tenant intended to seek compensation, this was not clearly stated at the hearing and the Tribunal had worked off the list provided by the Tenant. They were asked at the end of the hearing if the last claim regarding failure to appoint an agent was their last claim. They confirmed it was the last claim. Upon reviewing the recording of the hearing, it is noted they stated they were going to raise minor incidental claims but then decided not to proceed. These were in regards to guttering causing water ingress and a leaking garage roof causing damage.
The Tenants raised there was no filter in the HRV system which was noted in the Healthy Homes Standards inspection. This is a further attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s findings of fact and is not a sufficient ground for rehearing.
New evidence of [Tenant 1]’s stress is based on her reports to a medical professional. The Tribunal already considered this and balanced it against other factors, including the timing of the application. This evidence does not warrant a rehearing and should have been presented earlier.
New evidence regarding holes in the hallway should have been submitted at the hearing and does not affect the outcome.
The Landlord contends a video could not be viewed at the hearing. The Tenants were given the opportunity to view it at the hearing and raised no issues at the time they had no access to it. No video from the landlord was submitted post- hearing. It is unclear what the Tenants now refer to as evidence submitted after the hearing.
For these reasons, the Tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903534 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903534 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions