What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998868?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570774-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998868?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570774-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998868 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the re hearing application hearing.
On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, reimbursement of filing fee and dismissing the tenants’ claims.
On 9 January 2025, Dion Algar applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: - One of his submissions was not present at the hearing, -He did not have full “disclosure” of the landlords’ documents, -He didn’t understand how the Tribunal worked and what was required of him, - That the landlord lied to the Tribunal, -Evidence about an expert opinion was not submitted, -Correspondence about house inspections were omitted.
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 Dion Algar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Missing submissions:
The submissions that Mr Algar claims were missing was in fact before the Tribunal. I referred to the document at length during the hearing and in my order. Did not have full disclosure:
Mr Algar accepts that all the landlord documents where probably on the Tenancy Tribunal “portal.” However, Mr Algar said he had technology issues and could not access the landlord documents.
All documents were disclosure to Mr Algar.
The landlord documents relate solely to their claim for rent arrears and not documents relating to the tenants’ claims. For completeness I will itemise all the documents under the landlord’s application: -Numerous notices of hearing (mediation and Tribunal) -Tenancy Agreement and Tenancy Tribunal application -Rent summary. -Photos of the property taken at the time the landlords purchased the property a year or two before. -Statutory Declaration from previous tenant. -Tribunal Orders. Did not understand how the Tribunal worked and what was required of him:
The Tenancy Tribunal is considered a lay jurisdiction, meaning that it is not a traditional court and typically does not require legal representation. The Tribunal allows individuals to represent themselves in disputes between tenants and landlords. The hearings are conducted in a more informal manner.
The tenant said he sought a lot of advice from Tenancy Services, and informal advice channels in the community. He was of the view that Tenancy Services were of no or very little use in providing him with assistance on progressing his claims.
It is of note that the tenant was able to present a comprehensive and detailed 60-page document for the Tribunal.
It is for the applicant to provide the evidence and support for their claims. This is called the onus of proof. That onus rests on the person making the claim. The landlord lied:
It is the adjudicator that had the burden of assessing what information they accept or reject. The tenant claims that the landlord painted the house before the tenancy started to hide the mould issues.
At the hearing, the landlord claimed he had not painted the house but that it was done prior to when he purchased the property a year earlier.
I do not need to consider whether the landlord lied or not, as that statement was not something that influenced by determination of the alleged mould issues. Expert Evidence not submitted:
The tenant is referring to claims made by the landlord that he had a builder come and assess the under house for the purpose of a moisture barrier installation.
The landlord said the builder said it was too shallow and there was not enough room to install a moisture barrier.
The tenant responded that he had installed hundreds of moisture barriers and he said there was enough room. This point was discussed at length. The claim of expertise by Mr Algar was equally not supported by evidence at the hearing.
The tenant provided photos of the under house and showed where there was a moisture barrier for most of the underneath up until the lower level of the under house.
Neither party provided evidence to support or refute their statements regarding the moisture barrier and potential installation. Correspondence about house inspections were omitted:
This was not part of the landlord claim. Therefore, it is for the tenant to raise this inspection reports if he wants to rely on them at the hearing.
Tenants are permitted to obtain this information about their tenancy from the landlord. At no point did the tenant say he had sought these documents and the landlord had refused to provide them.
For all the above reasons I am dismissing the rehearing application.
My order of 17 December 2024 stands and is enforceable.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the re hearing application hearing.
On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, reimbursement of filing fee and dismissing the tenants’ claims.
On 9 January 2025, Dion Algar applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: - One of his submissions was not present at the hearing, -He did not have full “disclosure” of the landlords’ documents, -He didn’t understand how the Tribunal worked and what was required of him, - That the landlord lied to the Tribunal, -Evidence about an expert opinion was not submitted, -Correspondence about house inspections were omitted.
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 Dion Algar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Missing submissions:
The submissions that Mr Algar claims were missing was in fact before the Tribunal. I referred to the document at length during the hearing and in my order. Did not have full disclosure:
Mr Algar accepts that all the landlord documents where probably on the Tenancy Tribunal “portal.” However, Mr Algar said he had technology issues and could not access the landlord documents.
All documents were disclosure to Mr Algar.
The landlord documents relate solely to their claim for rent arrears and not documents relating to the tenants’ claims. For completeness I will itemise all the documents under the landlord’s application: -Numerous notices of hearing (mediation and Tribunal) -Tenancy Agreement and Tenancy Tribunal application -Rent summary. -Photos of the property taken at the time the landlords purchased the property a year or two before. -Statutory Declaration from previous tenant. -Tribunal Orders. Did not understand how the Tribunal worked and what was required of him:
The Tenancy Tribunal is considered a lay jurisdiction, meaning that it is not a traditional court and typically does not require legal representation. The Tribunal allows individuals to represent themselves in disputes between tenants and landlords. The hearings are conducted in a more informal manner.
The tenant said he sought a lot of advice from Tenancy Services, and informal advice channels in the community. He was of the view that Tenancy Services were of no or very little use in providing him with assistance on progressing his claims.
It is of note that the tenant was able to present a comprehensive and detailed 60-page document for the Tribunal.
It is for the applicant to provide the evidence and support for their claims. This is called the onus of proof. That onus rests on the person making the claim. The landlord lied:
It is the adjudicator that had the burden of assessing what information they accept or reject. The tenant claims that the landlord painted the house before the tenancy started to hide the mould issues.
At the hearing, the landlord claimed he had not painted the house but that it was done prior to when he purchased the property a year earlier.
I do not need to consider whether the landlord lied or not, as that statement was not something that influenced by determination of the alleged mould issues. Expert Evidence not submitted:
The tenant is referring to claims made by the landlord that he had a builder come and assess the under house for the purpose of a moisture barrier installation.
The landlord said the builder said it was too shallow and there was not enough room to install a moisture barrier.
The tenant responded that he had installed hundreds of moisture barriers and he said there was enough room. This point was discussed at length. The claim of expertise by Mr Algar was equally not supported by evidence at the hearing.
The tenant provided photos of the under house and showed where there was a moisture barrier for most of the underneath up until the lower level of the under house.
Neither party provided evidence to support or refute their statements regarding the moisture barrier and potential installation. Correspondence about house inspections were omitted:
This was not part of the landlord claim. Therefore, it is for the tenant to raise this inspection reports if he wants to rely on them at the hearing.
Tenants are permitted to obtain this information about their tenancy from the landlord. At no point did the tenant say he had sought these documents and the landlord had refused to provide them.
For all the above reasons I am dismissing the rehearing application.
My order of 17 December 2024 stands and is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998868 — Rent arrears at 9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998868 — Rent arrears at 9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

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