What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953755 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4953755?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953755?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12124255-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953755 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4953755?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953755?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12124255-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

203 Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953755 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 2 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord $4,841.54 in compensation.
In the Tribunal order dated 2 April 2025, the Tribunal: a. Declined to order exemplary damages for the subletting of the premises by the tenant; and b. Dismissed the landlord’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for methamphetamine.
On 7 April 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing. A hearing to consider the landlord’s request was held on 15 July 2025 with both parties in attendance. The law
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. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims a rehearing should be granted, because they have obtained additional evidence that proves the tenant or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy.
The additional evidence that the landlord has obtained to help prove the above matters is: a. Statements from neighbours, which discuss the actions of subtenants. None of the neighbours state that they witnessed methamphetamine being used on or inside the premises, but their statements discuss other unusual and concerning behaviour of subtenants. b. Text messages between the landlord and a subtenant who wishes to remain anonymous. In these text messages, the anonymous subtenant states there was “at least 5 individuals that were on that crap, using openly inside and outside your property.” The anonymous subtenant also states they witnessed other subtenants with glass pipes and cannabis in their bedrooms. c. Expert evidence from the Director of Safe and Healthy Home Solutions Ltd explaining why the Tribunal can be assured on the balance of probabilities that the heat pump was not contaminated with methamphetamine prior to installation.
The landlord also claims that the property manager colluded with the tenant to allow the tenant to sublet the premises without the permission of the landlord. The landlord did not submit any evidence to support this claim, but submits that this allegation is relevant and was not brough to the Tribunal’s attention at the first hearing. The landlord states this was because they were dealing with a dispute regarding the actions of the property manager in the Disputes Tribunal and were not aware they could mention the dispute as part of their case before the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord claims they did not obtain statements from neighbours prior to the first hearing because they are not experienced and believed the evidence they had would be sufficient to prove their claim in relation to methamphetamine. Further, the landlord claims they did not want to disturb their neighbours and involve them in these proceedings, because the neighbours had already suffered extensive disruption as a result of the actions of the tenant and subtenants. The landlord felt responsible for this and did not want to bother the neighbours further.
The landlord claims they did not submit the evidence from the anonymous subtenant at the first hearing, because they were unsure how to go about this whilst protecting the anonymity of this witness.
The landlord claims they did not call anyone from Safe and Healthy Home Solutions Ltd to give evidence at the first hearing because they believed the evidence they had was sufficient to support their claim in relation to methamphetamine. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. This is because I consider the additional evidence filed by the landlord was reasonably available at the first hearing.
The landlord’s neighbours were available to give evidence about what they observed during the tenancy at the first hearing. The landlord made a considered decision not to call them. After reading the Tribunal’s decision dated 2 April 2025, the landlord has noted that their case may have been stronger if they had presented evidence from their neighbours however, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case.
The same can be said in relation to the text messages the landlord has submitted from an anonymous subtenant. The landlord knew who this person was at the time of the first hearing and that they had relevant evidence relating to methamphetamine use inside the premises during the tenancy. The landlord chose not to present this evidence or enquire with the Tribunal about an appropriate way to present it whilst protecting the anonymity of the witness. The inexperience of the landlord in conducting proceedings does not mean that the evidence was unavailable at the first hearing. Again, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case.
The landlord made a considered decision not to call anyone from Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited to give evidence at the first hearing. The landlord claims they believed the heat pump evidence and email from Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited was sufficient to prove their claim in relation to methamphetamine use inside the premises. The Tribunal was of a different view. After reading the Tribunal’s decision dated 2 April 2025, the landlord has noted that their case may have been stronger if further expert evidence was submitted however, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case. Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited were available to give evidence at the first hearing and the landlord chose not to call them.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to support their claim that the property manager colluded with the tenant to allow the tenant to sublet the premises. This is a theory of the landlord’s and even if there was evidence to support it, I am unsure how this would have affected my original decision. If the landlord’s property manager did not follow the landlord’s instructions, the appropriate remedy for the landlord is to file a claim against their property manager, which I understand they have already done and settled. It remains the case however, that the property manager was the landlord’s agent at the relevant time and they varied the tenancy agreement to allow the tenant to sublet by simply providing notice to the landlord and photograph identification.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 2 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order requiring the tenant to pay the landlord $4,841.54 in compensation.
In the Tribunal order dated 2 April 2025, the Tribunal: a. Declined to order exemplary damages for the subletting of the premises by the tenant; and b. Dismissed the landlord’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for methamphetamine.
On 7 April 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing. A hearing to consider the landlord’s request was held on 15 July 2025 with both parties in attendance. The law
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. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims a rehearing should be granted, because they have obtained additional evidence that proves the tenant or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy.
The additional evidence that the landlord has obtained to help prove the above matters is: a. Statements from neighbours, which discuss the actions of subtenants. None of the neighbours state that they witnessed methamphetamine being used on or inside the premises, but their statements discuss other unusual and concerning behaviour of subtenants. b. Text messages between the landlord and a subtenant who wishes to remain anonymous. In these text messages, the anonymous subtenant states there was “at least 5 individuals that were on that crap, using openly inside and outside your property.” The anonymous subtenant also states they witnessed other subtenants with glass pipes and cannabis in their bedrooms. c. Expert evidence from the Director of Safe and Healthy Home Solutions Ltd explaining why the Tribunal can be assured on the balance of probabilities that the heat pump was not contaminated with methamphetamine prior to installation.
The landlord also claims that the property manager colluded with the tenant to allow the tenant to sublet the premises without the permission of the landlord. The landlord did not submit any evidence to support this claim, but submits that this allegation is relevant and was not brough to the Tribunal’s attention at the first hearing. The landlord states this was because they were dealing with a dispute regarding the actions of the property manager in the Disputes Tribunal and were not aware they could mention the dispute as part of their case before the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord claims they did not obtain statements from neighbours prior to the first hearing because they are not experienced and believed the evidence they had would be sufficient to prove their claim in relation to methamphetamine. Further, the landlord claims they did not want to disturb their neighbours and involve them in these proceedings, because the neighbours had already suffered extensive disruption as a result of the actions of the tenant and subtenants. The landlord felt responsible for this and did not want to bother the neighbours further.
The landlord claims they did not submit the evidence from the anonymous subtenant at the first hearing, because they were unsure how to go about this whilst protecting the anonymity of this witness.
The landlord claims they did not call anyone from Safe and Healthy Home Solutions Ltd to give evidence at the first hearing because they believed the evidence they had was sufficient to support their claim in relation to methamphetamine. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. This is because I consider the additional evidence filed by the landlord was reasonably available at the first hearing.
The landlord’s neighbours were available to give evidence about what they observed during the tenancy at the first hearing. The landlord made a considered decision not to call them. After reading the Tribunal’s decision dated 2 April 2025, the landlord has noted that their case may have been stronger if they had presented evidence from their neighbours however, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case.
The same can be said in relation to the text messages the landlord has submitted from an anonymous subtenant. The landlord knew who this person was at the time of the first hearing and that they had relevant evidence relating to methamphetamine use inside the premises during the tenancy. The landlord chose not to present this evidence or enquire with the Tribunal about an appropriate way to present it whilst protecting the anonymity of the witness. The inexperience of the landlord in conducting proceedings does not mean that the evidence was unavailable at the first hearing. Again, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case.
The landlord made a considered decision not to call anyone from Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited to give evidence at the first hearing. The landlord claims they believed the heat pump evidence and email from Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited was sufficient to prove their claim in relation to methamphetamine use inside the premises. The Tribunal was of a different view. After reading the Tribunal’s decision dated 2 April 2025, the landlord has noted that their case may have been stronger if further expert evidence was submitted however, the purpose of a rehearing is not to provide a second opportunity for an applicant to present their case. Safe and Healthy Home NZ Limited were available to give evidence at the first hearing and the landlord chose not to call them.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to support their claim that the property manager colluded with the tenant to allow the tenant to sublet the premises. This is a theory of the landlord’s and even if there was evidence to support it, I am unsure how this would have affected my original decision. If the landlord’s property manager did not follow the landlord’s instructions, the appropriate remedy for the landlord is to file a claim against their property manager, which I understand they have already done and settled. It remains the case however, that the property manager was the landlord’s agent at the relevant time and they varied the tenancy agreement to allow the tenant to sublet by simply providing notice to the landlord and photograph identification.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953755 — Exemplary damages at 203 Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953755 — Exemplary damages at 203 Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.