What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962894 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 4962894?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962894?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962894 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 4962894?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962894?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962894 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 20 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for refund of water payment. All other claims were dismissed.

On 30 December 2024, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a lot of facts, assumptions, contradictions and doubtful statements were not examined, and several important things were misjudged at the hearing.

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?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

At the hearing held on 19 February 2025 to consider the application for rehearing the tenant put forward reasons as to why a rehearing was sought.

Those reasons included that they disagreed with the decision relating to heating, the tenants had not mentioned at the hearing that the plumber had replaced the thermostat before the tenancy, and the overheating of the hot water cylinder caused the leak.

After the hearing held on 19 December 2024 the tenants have collected evidence which they wish to submit at a rehearing. That evidence included communication from two plumbing companies that faults to three thermostats is very uncommon, evidence from a plumber that the overheating probably caused the leak of the hot water cylinder and the tenant’s assessment for heating at the premises.

In relation to the evidence collected after the hearing, there is no reason why this evidence could not reasonably be available at the earlier hearing. It is also not clear that if this evidence were available that it would mean the decision was substantially wrong or that there was a miscarriage of justice.

For the other matters raised by the tenant, the tenant did not agree with the decision of the Tribunal for various reasons. But this is not a reason for there to be a rehearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for refund of water payment. All other claims were dismissed.
On 30 December 2024, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a lot of facts, assumptions, contradictions and doubtful statements were not examined, and several important things were misjudged at the hearing.
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?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
At the hearing held on 19 February 2025 to consider the application for rehearing the tenant put forward reasons as to why a rehearing was sought.
Those reasons included that they disagreed with the decision relating to heating, the tenants had not mentioned at the hearing that the plumber had replaced the thermostat before the tenancy, and the overheating of the hot water cylinder caused the leak.
After the hearing held on 19 December 2024 the tenants have collected evidence which they wish to submit at a rehearing. That evidence included communication from two plumbing companies that faults to three thermostats is very uncommon, evidence from a plumber that the overheating probably caused the leak of the hot water cylinder and the tenant’s assessment for heating at the premises.
In relation to the evidence collected after the hearing, there is no reason why this evidence could not reasonably be available at the earlier hearing. It is also not clear that if this evidence were available that it would mean the decision was substantially wrong or that there was a miscarriage of justice.
For the other matters raised by the tenant, the tenant did not agree with the decision of the Tribunal for various reasons. But this is not a reason for there to be a rehearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962894 — Leaks at 153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962894 — Leaks at 153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

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