What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998191 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998191?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998191 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998191?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998191 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 9 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Tenants application for exemplary damages.
On 16 December 2024, Robin Shinn applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had new evidence and evidence they submitted at the hearing was rejected.
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 Robin Shinn has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mrs Shinn claimed that her evidence was not properly considered because it was “attached to our submissions rather than displayed in our submissions,” She re-submitted this material for clarification.
The Landlord responded that the Tenant’s case was not dismissed due to missing or ignored evidence, but rather because the evidence provided did not support their compensation claim. The Landlord further submitted that the Tenants were “desperately milking and exploring any avenue they can think of” to seek financial compensation months after the tenancy had ended. They argued that the evidence had already been reviewed by the Tribunal and should not be revisited.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal confirms that all evidence submitted for the hearing was reviewed, whether it was attached to or embedded within the main submission. Not all evidence is referred to in the final Order, in the interest of clarity and brevity.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed..
Mrs Shinn submitted that she had new evidence indicating the Landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. She referred to the rodent infestation issue and disputed the Tribunal’s earlier finding that it may have been partly due to the Tenants’ lifestyle. She alleged that the letter provided by the Landlord from pest control company Rentokil dated 11 August 2024 was fraudulent. After the Tribunal Order was issued on 7 December 2024, she obtained a second letter from Rentokil dated 9 December 2024 that contradicted the Landlord’s evidence. This letter stated that the earlier letter of 11 August 2024 was not officially written or approved by Rentokil. This information was not available at the original hearing because Rentokil required more time to investigate. She also referred to earlier emails, text messages, and other correspondence which she believed demonstrated that lifestyle factors were not responsible.
The Landlord denied attempting to mislead the Tribunal with the letter. They stated that they were unaware, until the hearing on 7 November 2024, that the Rentokil technician’s report had not been issued through official channels. They alleged that the Tenant had contacted the technician’s manager, which led Rentokil to disavow the report.
The Landlord later provided a further letter from Rentokil dated 30 January 2025, which confirmed that the photos submitted by Mrs Shinn had not been taken by Rentokil staff and could not be verified as coming from the property in question. Rentokil had not conducted a physical inspection, and also noted that Mrs Shinn was not a paying client, so any communication between her and Rentokil should not be relied upon as evidence of infestation. The Landlord also submitted that Mrs Shinn had pressured Rentokil staff during the process.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the new evidence from Mrs Shinn, being the letter dated 9 December 2024, was contradicted by the subsequent letter from Rentokil dated 30 January 2025. The Tribunal considers that even without this letter of 30 January 2025, the letter of 9 December 2024 was not persuasive because it was based on an assessment of photographs provided by the Tenant and without physical inspection of the property. The photographs had no verification of time, date, or location. The new evidence would not change the Tribunals decision.
Mrs Shinn submitted photographs showing property access points for the rodents. However, these were already included and considered during the original hearing.
Mrs Shinn also submitted that she had provided supporting evidence to substantiate her dogs distress during the tenancy. She referred to bank records showing purchases from Bunnings and an advertisement for dog kennels, which was filed for the hearing.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that this evidence was not ignored but did not sufficiently demonstrate that the purchases were made in response to the dog’s distress. The Bunnings transactions could have been for unrelated items, and there was no receipt linking a purchase from Mrs Shinn to the specific kennel advertised.
Mrs Shinn further referred to the leak issue and the Tribunal’s previous finding that she did not provide independent expert evidence proving the carpet damage was caused by the leak. Her new submission however repeated arguments and re-submitted the same evidence.
The Tribunal finds that this is an attempt to reargue matters already determined. A rehearing will not be granted on this basis. The claim is dismissed.
Mrs Shinn also claimed that the high-pitched noise from the UV light system was disruptive and required repair. The original decision was issued on 9 December 2024 and it appeared she then obtained a letter dated 11 December 2024 from "The Pump Warehouse" which stated that the UV lamp required maintenance.
The Landlord responded the Tenant was now attempting to shift the focus to an alleged health risk related to the UV system, months after the tenancy had ended. The Landlord submitted that this was a baseless claim made in pursuit of financial compensation.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that this new evidence from the Pump Warehouse was available—or could reasonably have been obtained— prior to the original hearing and should have been presented at that time. The Tenant has not provided any valid explanation as to why this evidence was not obtained and submitted before the hearing. Seeking to introduce evidence in direct response to the Tribunal’s findings, rather than presenting a complete case at the hearing, undermines the principle of finality in Tribunal proceedings. In any event, the new evidence does not establish a clear connection between the UV light system and any health issues experienced by the Tenants. The evidence would not have changed the Tribunal’s decision.
For these reasons, the application for a rehearing is refused.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 9 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Tenants application for exemplary damages.
On 16 December 2024, Robin Shinn applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had new evidence and evidence they submitted at the hearing was rejected.
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 Robin Shinn has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mrs Shinn claimed that her evidence was not properly considered because it was “attached to our submissions rather than displayed in our submissions,” She re-submitted this material for clarification.
The Landlord responded that the Tenant’s case was not dismissed due to missing or ignored evidence, but rather because the evidence provided did not support their compensation claim. The Landlord further submitted that the Tenants were “desperately milking and exploring any avenue they can think of” to seek financial compensation months after the tenancy had ended. They argued that the evidence had already been reviewed by the Tribunal and should not be revisited.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal confirms that all evidence submitted for the hearing was reviewed, whether it was attached to or embedded within the main submission. Not all evidence is referred to in the final Order, in the interest of clarity and brevity.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed..
Mrs Shinn submitted that she had new evidence indicating the Landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. She referred to the rodent infestation issue and disputed the Tribunal’s earlier finding that it may have been partly due to the Tenants’ lifestyle. She alleged that the letter provided by the Landlord from pest control company Rentokil dated 11 August 2024 was fraudulent. After the Tribunal Order was issued on 7 December 2024, she obtained a second letter from Rentokil dated 9 December 2024 that contradicted the Landlord’s evidence. This letter stated that the earlier letter of 11 August 2024 was not officially written or approved by Rentokil. This information was not available at the original hearing because Rentokil required more time to investigate. She also referred to earlier emails, text messages, and other correspondence which she believed demonstrated that lifestyle factors were not responsible.
The Landlord denied attempting to mislead the Tribunal with the letter. They stated that they were unaware, until the hearing on 7 November 2024, that the Rentokil technician’s report had not been issued through official channels. They alleged that the Tenant had contacted the technician’s manager, which led Rentokil to disavow the report.
The Landlord later provided a further letter from Rentokil dated 30 January 2025, which confirmed that the photos submitted by Mrs Shinn had not been taken by Rentokil staff and could not be verified as coming from the property in question. Rentokil had not conducted a physical inspection, and also noted that Mrs Shinn was not a paying client, so any communication between her and Rentokil should not be relied upon as evidence of infestation. The Landlord also submitted that Mrs Shinn had pressured Rentokil staff during the process.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the new evidence from Mrs Shinn, being the letter dated 9 December 2024, was contradicted by the subsequent letter from Rentokil dated 30 January 2025. The Tribunal considers that even without this letter of 30 January 2025, the letter of 9 December 2024 was not persuasive because it was based on an assessment of photographs provided by the Tenant and without physical inspection of the property. The photographs had no verification of time, date, or location. The new evidence would not change the Tribunals decision.
Mrs Shinn submitted photographs showing property access points for the rodents. However, these were already included and considered during the original hearing.
Mrs Shinn also submitted that she had provided supporting evidence to substantiate her dogs distress during the tenancy. She referred to bank records showing purchases from Bunnings and an advertisement for dog kennels, which was filed for the hearing.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that this evidence was not ignored but did not sufficiently demonstrate that the purchases were made in response to the dog’s distress. The Bunnings transactions could have been for unrelated items, and there was no receipt linking a purchase from Mrs Shinn to the specific kennel advertised.
Mrs Shinn further referred to the leak issue and the Tribunal’s previous finding that she did not provide independent expert evidence proving the carpet damage was caused by the leak. Her new submission however repeated arguments and re-submitted the same evidence.
The Tribunal finds that this is an attempt to reargue matters already determined. A rehearing will not be granted on this basis. The claim is dismissed.
Mrs Shinn also claimed that the high-pitched noise from the UV light system was disruptive and required repair. The original decision was issued on 9 December 2024 and it appeared she then obtained a letter dated 11 December 2024 from "The Pump Warehouse" which stated that the UV lamp required maintenance.
The Landlord responded the Tenant was now attempting to shift the focus to an alleged health risk related to the UV system, months after the tenancy had ended. The Landlord submitted that this was a baseless claim made in pursuit of financial compensation.
In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that this new evidence from the Pump Warehouse was available—or could reasonably have been obtained— prior to the original hearing and should have been presented at that time. The Tenant has not provided any valid explanation as to why this evidence was not obtained and submitted before the hearing. Seeking to introduce evidence in direct response to the Tribunal’s findings, rather than presenting a complete case at the hearing, undermines the principle of finality in Tribunal proceedings. In any event, the new evidence does not establish a clear connection between the UV light system and any health issues experienced by the Tenants. The evidence would not have changed the Tribunal’s decision.
For these reasons, the application for a rehearing is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998191 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998191 — Leaks

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