What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992428 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 4992428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992428?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11284120-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992428 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 4992428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992428?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11284120-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 61, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4992428 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today.
On 27 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation (mental and other consequences) arising from the presence of bed bugs in the room he rented from the landlord.
On 28 November 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had new evidence to produce, and that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the cause of the bedbugs was not due to any landlord failure or breach. Legal considerations
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or by a witness. The words also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons. First, the strength of the language in s105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies an obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the tenant to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant’s case is based on him having more evidence to produce, photos of messages between him and the landlord. Today, he said (as he did at the hearing) that the landlord required him to pay for professional pest treatment of the bed bugs and deliberately chose a time when he knew the tenant would not be available, despite knowing his schedule.
When I asked why he did not produce that evidence at the hearing, he said he did not realise it was important.
The evidence the tenant now wishes to place before the Tribunal is evidence that was available at the time of the hearing and could have been produced then. It is not ‘new’ evidence.
More important however, is the fact that my decision was based on the tenant failing to prove any breach by the landlord. He confirmed today that multiple rooms in the apartment had bed bugs. He believes they originated from the mattress in his room. But he failed to prove that.
As I said in my decision:
How the bed bugs arrived in the tenant’s room is unknown. But what the tenant has not proved is that the presence of bed bugs was due to any action or breach of statutory responsibility by the landlord. There are various possible explanations for the bed bug infestation. None is more probable than the other.
To succeed, the tenant has to prove some action by the landlord in breach of his responsibilities under the RTA on the balance of probabilities. He has not done so.
There was no procedural error in this case. The parties were notified of the hearing; they attended the hearing; and they both gave evidence. That the tenant does not accept the result is not a ground for a rehearing. Result
Because the tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today.

On 27 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation (mental and other consequences) arising from the presence of bed bugs in the room he rented from the landlord.

On 28 November 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had new evidence to produce, and that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the cause of the bedbugs was not due to any landlord failure or breach. Legal considerations

The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or by a witness. The words also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons. First, the strength of the language in s105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies an obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

I have quoted from these decisions to assist the tenant to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant’s case is based on him having more evidence to produce, photos of messages between him and the landlord. Today, he said (as he did at the hearing) that the landlord required him to pay for professional pest treatment of the bed bugs and deliberately chose a time when he knew the tenant would not be available, despite knowing his schedule.

When I asked why he did not produce that evidence at the hearing, he said he did not realise it was important.

The evidence the tenant now wishes to place before the Tribunal is evidence that was available at the time of the hearing and could have been produced then. It is not ‘new’ evidence.

More important however, is the fact that my decision was based on the tenant failing to prove any breach by the landlord. He confirmed today that multiple rooms in the apartment had bed bugs. He believes they originated from the mattress in his room. But he failed to prove that.

As I said in my decision:

How the bed bugs arrived in the tenant’s room is unknown. But what the tenant has not proved is that the presence of bed bugs was due to any action or breach of statutory responsibility by the landlord. There are various possible explanations for the bed bug infestation. None is more probable than the other.

To succeed, the tenant has to prove some action by the landlord in breach of his responsibilities under the RTA on the balance of probabilities. He has not done so.

There was no procedural error in this case. The parties were notified of the hearing; they attended the hearing; and they both gave evidence. That the tenant does not accept the result is not a ground for a rehearing. Result

Because the tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992428 — Tenancy dispute at Room 61, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992428 — Tenancy dispute at Room 61, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions