What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5047809 about?

The tribunal order states: Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s order of 11 April 2025 is amended so that [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5047809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196511-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5047809 about?

The tribunal order states: Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s order of 11 April 2025 is amended so that [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5047809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196511-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Holly Way, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5047809 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 July 2025. The purpose of the hearing was to address the tenant’s application for a rehearing.

On 11 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order refunding the bond of $3,280.00 to the landlord and ordering the tenant to pay $644.89. The order was made after two half-day hearings with an interpreter assisting the tenant on 25 February and 3 April 2025.

On 17 April 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had wrongly accepted and rejected certain pieces of evidence and because new evidence had become available. Relevant Law

Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of a proceeding where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

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, and 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 – “something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown”, see Wellington City Council v McMillan (DC Wellington, 7 June 2002, MA 70/02 & TT 97/02, Judge Tuohy) at paragraph 19.

The District Court has also confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506). Interpretation Assistance

At the hearing on 30 July 2025 the tenant said the interpreter at the two hearings only spoke Cantonese, and this caused communication difficulties. Subsequently he said that the interpreter did understand some Mandarin, but she could not properly understand his vocabulary.

The landlord said they had attended hearings with the same interpreter, and she spoke Mandarin. The landlord said the interpreter is from Hong Kong, speaks Cantonese as her first language, but was interpreting from Mandarin.

The tenant did not raise any difficulties or concerns with the interpretation during the hearings, or in his rehearing application. He said he only realised he should raise the issue after visiting a Community Law Centre.

Having reviewed my notes from the first two hearings, I am satisfied that the tenant was able to get his basic points across. The tenant also presented some of his case in writing.

Significantly, the written submissions provided by the tenant in support of the rehearing application, together the assistance of a different interpreter, did not clarify ambiguities in the evidence. In other words, the lack of clarity was not solely a function of the interpretation assistance.

I am not satisfied that the tenant was unable to adequately present his case at the hearings in February and April 2025. The tenant was given lengthy opportunities to present evidence at both hearings. I am not satisfied that any issues there may have been with the interpreter caused, or might have caused, a miscarriage of justice. Rent and Water

The tenant said he stopped paying the rent because the swimming pool was not repaired. He said the landlord refused to repair the pool because of the insurance excess. The tenant said he stopped paying the water charges because he was owed money by the landlord for some maintenance he had done.

I reiterate that the tenant had an independent obligation to pay the rent and outgoings. This issue has been determined and will not be reheard. Cleaning

The tenant said there was mould in various rooms. They cleaned thoroughly and took photographs. Many of the landlord’s photographs were unclear or flawed.

The Tribunal explained its reasons for awarding cleaning costs in its order. The award was reduced because of the mould. A rehearing will not be granted simply to re-litigate an issue that has already been determined. Swimming Pool Repair

The tenant said the landlord was wrong about the pool being unheated and not being used in winter. In fact, the swimming pool was heated, and they regularly used it in the evenings. The tenant provided a photograph of the heater.

The point was made by the landlord during the first hearing, so the tenant had an opportunity to take issue with it, either then or at the second hearing. This is not a case of new evidence which was not reasonably available before the Tribunal made its determination. The tenant has been compensated for loss of use of the swimming pool but disagrees with the amount. A rehearing will not be granted so the tenant can take issue with the merits of the award. Water Pump and Pool Cover

The tenant said he provided photographs of the water pump and pool cover he purchased to show the efforts he made to maintain the property. He did not request reimbursement, but the manager told him he would be reimbursed.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear if the property manager agreed to reimburse these expenses. Without evidence of such a representation, there can be no restitution. This issue has been determined, and a rehearing is not appropriate. Tree Maintenance

In written submissions the tenant said the claim that the trees on the north side were trimmed in August 2022 was false. His evidence, which he said was ignored, showed those rooms were still blocked by trees: Due to neglected pruning, rooftop drainage was damaged by climbing plants, which I had to trim myself. I am claiming compensation for this. The only trimming that occurred was in August 2022, but it didn’t solve the problem. Tree branches were left in my yard for a week, preventing my children from playing. Branches left on the street led to complaints from neighbours, and I had to clean it up myself for three hours that night.

In the application form, the tenant stated that the landlord was obligated to pay him $120.00 for having to tidy up: Also, the workers did not pull the branches and twigs away, and when I got home that afternoon, a neighbour came and complained that the branches and twigs were laying on the pavement outside the wall, and I had to pick up the branches and twigs that night.

In a text message on 15 August 2022, the tenant informed the landlord that the neighbours had complained about the tree cuttings. The landlord responded that they would ask the tradesperson to go back. On 16 August 2022 the tenant requested that the branches be removed. In an undated text message, the tenant said: I’ve already told you its not safe for the kids to play in the yard, and we can’t keep them out for a week, so we can’t wait any longer, we have to clean up the garden first of all, and I’m not going to lie, that day, the neighbours came to the door, and I picked up the leaves that night, and the family told me that we should have let the workmen do it.

The landlord replied that she was asking for the tradesperson’s number from the owner. There are also text messages on 16 August 2022 in which the landlord indicated that the tradesperson had been requested to come back, and the tenant said he had not done so. It is not possible to follow the text messages exchanged on 17 August 2022.

The tenant spoke about the tradesperson’s failure to tidy up branches at the first hearing, reiterating that it affected his children’s use of the yard. The cost of tidying away branches was not addressed in the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal assessed whether the overhanging trees contributed to issues with damp and mould inside the house. General damages of $250.00 were awarded.

The tenant’s evidence establishes that there was a problem with debris after the tree trimming. This claim ought to have been addressed in the Tribunal’s determination. In the interests of expediency, given the issue was raised at the earlier hearings, I have decided to determine the claim. I award $120.00 for the inconvenience and loss of amenity the tenant experienced when the fallen tree branches were not removed immediately. Curtains

The tenant said the curtains (or more accurately, blinds) were defective when they moved in. The track was replaced by rings, making them difficult to use. When it stopped working, someone was sent to measure for new curtains, but nothing happened for a year until he refused to pay the water charges.

The problem seems to have been that the curtains would not stay up and the tenant was unable to lift and lower them. The Tribunal assessed this part of the tenant’s claim, which largely relied on the tenant’s own evidence and text messages, as best it could.

Ultimately, I was not satisfied that the landlord failed to remedy a maintenance issue, or to do so in a reasonable time. While there does seem to have been a problem with the curtains, there could be several reasons for that. The tenant does not agree with the Tribunal’s decision but that is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing. Back Wall and Front Gate

The tenant said the back wall was damaged by a storm. The front gate later became inoperable. This was a major safety issue for his son. The delayed gate repairs were negligent.

In the application form, the tenant said he notified the property manager, there was some contact with a repairer, but no one came so he had to fix the gate himself, and the landlord should pay him $80.00. That was the extent of the evidence presented on this issue. I remain of the view that the tenant has not proved this claim.

I note that the Tribunal awarded $40.00 for the cost of the tenant repairing the back wall that was damaged in a storm. This claim was supported by a photograph. Roof and Mould

The tenant said that his evidence was ignored. The roof leaked and his photographs showed widespread mould.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented and found that there was no evidence of a roof leak caused by a failure to maintain; but also took the view that the landlord’s investigation did not go far enough. Compensation of $500.00 was awarded for this failure. A rehearing cannot be granted simply because the tenant disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings. Harassment

The tenant said the Tribunal ignored his evidence and that two managers had defamed him, not just one. In the application form, the tenant said, “...the last property manager was not only rude, but also falsely accused me of harassment and assault...”.

The tenant’s accusations lack factual details and there is nothing of evidential value supporting them. There is an exchange of texts with the previous property manager, which was fractious, but it cannot be considered harassing (the property manager’s comments suggest she felt the tenant was too demanding of her time). The tenant may have interpreted or experienced the perceived failures to maintain the premises adequately as “harassment”, but that does not satisfy the legal definition. Portable Stove

The tenant said his evidence was ignored. The property manager told him the stove was okay to use. He did not know they are not allowed in New Zealand. The tenant said the property manager only warned him about it in October 2024.

Like other aspects of the tenant’s application, this claim relied on his own uncorroborated evidence. It seems implausible that a professional property manager would tell a tenant they could use a portable stove. Further, the tenancy agreement clearly prohibited the use of such facilities (see the special conditions, “Dangerous Substances”). Conclusion

I have amended the 11 April 2025 order in one respect. The claim relating to tree maintenance and the failure to tidy away fallen branches was overlooked. It is now addressed in the interests of finality.

I am not satisfied that there has or may have been a miscarriage of justice. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons