What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5018409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018409?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5018409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018409?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5018409 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 9 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenant $12,267.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

On 13 December 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds:

The hearing to determine whether the landlord is able to establish grounds for a rehearing was held by phone on 12 February 2024. Both parties attended. I was told that Mr Ling, who appeared for the landlord at the original hearing, is no longer in the employ of the landlord. Mr Lun from Barfoot & Thompson appeared for the landlord together with Mr Choi, the owner of the property.

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?

The landlord presented four reasons why a rehearing should be granted.

At the hearing the landlord suggested that there was a mistake in the order as he said that the property was compliant with the healthy homes regulations on 31 January 2022 and not 12 October 2022 as stated in the order (at paragraph 4 of the order).

However this ground appears to be based on a mis-reading of the decision. Paragraph 4 of the decision simply recorded the compliance date for the property to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (90 days after the tenancy began).

The compliance date as calculated was correct and ultimately had no bearing on the outcome as damages were awarded from the start of the tenancy because the landlord had breached their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord said that he did not lay a ground moisture barrier and draught stop the windows just prior to 11 August 2024 (when the Healthy Homes inspection took place). He said that he had evidence to present on this issue that would prove the position.

It is not clear to me how this reason could support a rehearing. At the original hearing the tenant alleged that the landlord laid a ground moisture barrier, installed insulation and draught stopped the windows just prior to the inspection. But the Tribunal did not find this claim proved on the evidence (see paragraph 32 of the order). No finding has been made against the landlord on this issue.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord disputed the Tribunal’s finding that water ingress was caused due to lack of maintenance. The landlord sought to introduce two documents in evidence that were not produced at the original hearing: a. Property inspection report dated 10 January 2022 by Auckland Home Inspection Company (Les Rassie) prior to the landlord purchasing the property; and b. “Moisture issues” report dated 7 February 2025 by Auckland Home Waterproofing Co Ltd (Les Rassie).

The landlord also stated that Mr Rassie was available to give evidence.

The tenant said that the report writer and the landlord are good friends. He expressed concern about the reliability of the report.

I have considered the landlord’s submissions and the evidence.

The first property inspection report was available well before the original hearing and so is not “new” evidence. However even if it had been considered it would not have affected the outcome. The report is a builder’s report prior to purchase and not an all-encompassing report (see paragraphs 10.5, 10.6) or comprehensive weathertightness report (see paragraph 10.9. of the report). The report was also conducted on a clear, dry day after month of “very dry” weather prior to the inspection, and was completed over a year prior to the start of the tenancy.

The issues experienced by the tenant occurred later and were proved in evidence at the hearing.

The report dated 7 February was obtained by the landlord only after the hearing had taken place and the decision had been issued. The landlord took no steps to obtain a comprehensive report on the issue of the leak despite the tenant continually raising the leak as an issue throughout the tenancy and filing a claim in the Tribunal.

It was open to the landlord to obtain a report prior to the hearing but they chose not to. In my view the report was therefore “reasonably available” at the time of the original hearing and cannot be relied on as grounds for a rehearing.

However for completeness I have reviewed the report I do not consider that it would have altered the outcome. The tenant presented contemporaneous evidence proving the issue on the balance of probabilities. This report, obtained well after the hearing, would not have outweighed the tenant’s evidence.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing.

This issue was not raised during the original hearing, and cannot be raised now, but for completeness I record that the landlord’s claim in respect of access would not have been established on the evidence.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing. Outcome

I note that, in addition to the documents referred to at paragraph 17 above, the landlord has filed various correspondence between the landlord and the tenant in support of the application for a rehearing. All of this evidence was in existence and available at the first hearing, and it appears that the majority of that correspondence was in fact filed by the tenant and considered. This evidence is not new and would not have affected the outcome.

The landlord has not established that there are grounds for a rehearing. The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed. The stay of proceeding ordered on 17 December 2024 is now lifted for enforcement purposes.

Reasons

On 9 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenant $12,267.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

On 13 December 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds:

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord presented four reasons why a rehearing should be granted.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord also stated that Mr Rassie was available to give evidence.

The tenant said that the report writer and the landlord are good friends. He expressed concern about the reliability of the report.

I have considered the landlord’s submissions and the evidence.

The issues experienced by the tenant occurred later and were proved in evidence at the hearing.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing.

This reason does not establish grounds for a rehearing. Outcome

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018409 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018409 — Mould & damp

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