What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5024569 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 5024569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024569?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11357261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5024569 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 5024569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024569?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11357261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 McCahon Drive, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024569 — Cleanliness

Order

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

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The landlord and her agents attended. One of the tenants attended on behalf of both.
On 9 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order awarding the landlord compensation for damage to carpet in the master bedroom and to walls and for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s other claims were dismissed.
On 16 December the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal failed adequately to account for and reflect certain evidence in its decision. The grounds include criticism of the Tribunal’s reasoning.
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.
For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are four claims that are the subject of this application as follows. Sheer Curtains
The landlords claimed that sheer curtains were damaged during the tenancy by pulls. The tenant said that it was fair wear and tear. The landlord was able to remediate the damage by steaming the curtains but says that they have been left with small holes in them where the pull started. These holes can be seen only on close examination of the curtains.
I decided that there was no loss. For practical purposes the damage has been repaired at no cost. Any residual damage is not visible unless the curtains are closely examined and even then, the damage is minute.
It was open to me to award nominal compensation but not compensation based on the cost to replace the curtains. It was also open to me to make no award. The fact that another adjudicator might make a different decision is not a ground for a rehearing. Flue
I found that the claim that damage to the flue, consisting of some paint or coating coming off the flue, was caused by the tenant applying Sellotape to the flue was not proved. The landlord argued that the evidence should have led me to find the claim proved.
This is an example of a party saying that the decision was wrong. That is not a ground for a rehearing. Parties have their appeal rights if they want to claim that a wrong decision should be corrected. That would be for the District Court to consider.
The landlord wanted me to infer that because the tenant had used Sellotape elsewhere in the premises to put up balloons and the like (without causing any damage) that she did the same thing on the flue. There was no direct evidence that they had done so, and they denied doing so. It was open to me to accept that.
I would add that if I had found that the tenant had put Sellotape on the flue, I doubt that I would have found that it was careless damage. I would not expect a bit of Sellotape on a painted metal surface to damage it and so damage would not be foreseeable. Lawn
Again, the landlord argued that I should have come to different decision on the evidence. In other words that my decision was wrong. My decision was based on foreseeability or rather the absence of it. I found that the cleaning solution the tenants used to wash down the pavers caused an area of lawn to die off but that the damage was not foreseeable. For tenants to be liable for careless damage the type of damage that occurs must be foreseeable.
The landlord argued that the tenants must have misused the cleaning product that they used but I have no reason to think that it is more likely than not that they did so. That does leave the question of why it happened, and it is arguable that my decision was wrong in the sense that another decision maker could come to a different decision. But that is not a ground for a rehearing. Carpet
The landlord’s main argument in relation to the carpet is that the living area carpet suffered damage by being contaminated by dog urine and stained on its underside. The landlord says that she wants to replace it and that it is reasonable for her to do because of the risk of long-term effects from the contamination.
Putting aside the fact that I was not persuaded that the carpet was contaminated during the tenancy (or at all), there was no evidence of any long- term effects. There is no odour and staining, apart some from very minor staining, is limited to the underside of the carpet and so cannot be seen. In my view it is not reasonable to replace the carpet in those circumstances and therefore no compensation should be awarded relating to the cost of replacing the carpet.
There were stains to the carpet in the living area and the master bedroom and I awarded compensation for them. The landlord’s evidence now is that there are more stains on the bedroom carpet that were shown in the evidence produced at the original hearing. But the new evidence could have been produced at the original hearing and so that is not a ground for a rehearing.
For these reasons the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The tenants are granted name suppression for the same reason as previously given.

Order

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

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The landlord and her agents attended. One of the tenants attended on behalf of both.
On 9 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order awarding the landlord compensation for damage to carpet in the master bedroom and to walls and for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s other claims were dismissed.
On 16 December the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal failed adequately to account for and reflect certain evidence in its decision. The grounds include criticism of the Tribunal’s reasoning.
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.
For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are four claims that are the subject of this application as follows. Sheer Curtains
The landlords claimed that sheer curtains were damaged during the tenancy by pulls. The tenant said that it was fair wear and tear. The landlord was able to remediate the damage by steaming the curtains but says that they have been left with small holes in them where the pull started. These holes can be seen only on close examination of the curtains.
I decided that there was no loss. For practical purposes the damage has been repaired at no cost. Any residual damage is not visible unless the curtains are closely examined and even then, the damage is minute.
It was open to me to award nominal compensation but not compensation based on the cost to replace the curtains. It was also open to me to make no award. The fact that another adjudicator might make a different decision is not a ground for a rehearing. Flue
I found that the claim that damage to the flue, consisting of some paint or coating coming off the flue, was caused by the tenant applying Sellotape to the flue was not proved. The landlord argued that the evidence should have led me to find the claim proved.
This is an example of a party saying that the decision was wrong. That is not a ground for a rehearing. Parties have their appeal rights if they want to claim that a wrong decision should be corrected. That would be for the District Court to consider.
The landlord wanted me to infer that because the tenant had used Sellotape elsewhere in the premises to put up balloons and the like (without causing any damage) that she did the same thing on the flue. There was no direct evidence that they had done so, and they denied doing so. It was open to me to accept that.
I would add that if I had found that the tenant had put Sellotape on the flue, I doubt that I would have found that it was careless damage. I would not expect a bit of Sellotape on a painted metal surface to damage it and so damage would not be foreseeable. Lawn
Again, the landlord argued that I should have come to different decision on the evidence. In other words that my decision was wrong. My decision was based on foreseeability or rather the absence of it. I found that the cleaning solution the tenants used to wash down the pavers caused an area of lawn to die off but that the damage was not foreseeable. For tenants to be liable for careless damage the type of damage that occurs must be foreseeable.
The landlord argued that the tenants must have misused the cleaning product that they used but I have no reason to think that it is more likely than not that they did so. That does leave the question of why it happened, and it is arguable that my decision was wrong in the sense that another decision maker could come to a different decision. But that is not a ground for a rehearing. Carpet
The landlord’s main argument in relation to the carpet is that the living area carpet suffered damage by being contaminated by dog urine and stained on its underside. The landlord says that she wants to replace it and that it is reasonable for her to do because of the risk of long-term effects from the contamination.
Putting aside the fact that I was not persuaded that the carpet was contaminated during the tenancy (or at all), there was no evidence of any long- term effects. There is no odour and staining, apart some from very minor staining, is limited to the underside of the carpet and so cannot be seen. In my view it is not reasonable to replace the carpet in those circumstances and therefore no compensation should be awarded relating to the cost of replacing the carpet.
There were stains to the carpet in the living area and the master bedroom and I awarded compensation for them. The landlord’s evidence now is that there are more stains on the bedroom carpet that were shown in the evidence produced at the original hearing. But the new evidence could have been produced at the original hearing and so that is not a ground for a rehearing.
For these reasons the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The tenants are granted name suppression for the same reason as previously given.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024569 — Cleanliness at 12 McCahon Drive, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024569 — Cleanliness at 12 McCahon Drive, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions