What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072049 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 5072049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072049?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12053785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072049 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 5072049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072049?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12053785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072049 — Mould & damp

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Ms Maturan-Abuid represented the landlord.
On 28 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order awarding the tenant, [the tenant/s], $100.00 in compensation for the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that the carpet was damp, and there was an odour. The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of pest control costs was dismissed.
On 2 May 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises under section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). She wrote that the response of the landlord to her request that the property be cleaned was unprofessional. This meant she was unable to move in from transitional housing and had to stay with family, which caused stress and inconvenience. She found the attitude of the landlord’s staff to be dismissive and disrespectful. She ought to be compensated the remainder of the original claim of $527.00, less $100 granted in the original Tribunal order, and for petrol.
The tenant provided a written statement from a person identified as [redacted], case manager from [Community Trust], who had attended the premises at the start of the tenancy, on 18 October 2024. The statement set out her account of the events. The tenant also submitted a copy of the Tribunal order and provided written comments in response. She wrote that she was not satisfied with the level of compensation, and was only claiming for the loss of petrol and cleaning products, to at least $220.00. She submitted her evidence had not been properly considered.
In an attached written statement, the tenant wrote that there was inadequate use of her findings. She wanted new evidence from her former case manager at [Community Trust] ([redacted]) to be added to her existing case. She felt that her circumstances came under section 38, due to the interruption of her quiet enjoyment. When entering the premises at the start of the tenancy, the landlord’s staff member had not removed her shoes. Therefore, she did not experience the wet carpet, and the landlord continued to deny the carpets were wet. The adjudicator clearly overlooked her findings, and especially the inconvenience of interrupting her son, as well as immediate family, to utilise their home and shower, because there was no running water for days during the long weekend.
The tenant set out a detailed timeline of events. She noted there were six maintenance issues raised, and all six were repaired or completed after she reported them. She had decided to add new findings that she discovered soon after they moved in, which were different from the previous issues noted.
The tenant states she was concerned for her safety due to an unpredictable Pitbull dog that was roaming around and jumping over the fence. This dog almost bit her son when he was taking out the rubbish bin. She provided evidence of her calls to [City] Council regarding the roaming dog. [City] Council had been helpful. In contrast, the landlord advised her to e-mail them, as it would take up to 20 working days to get a report of her phone calls to them.
The tenant found the landlord’s method of obtaining details of her bank account to arrange for reimbursement of the $100.00 ordered by the Tribunal to be unprofessional. She attached a copy of her e-mail correspondence with the landlord. She also provided a copy of section 38 of the RTA, noting that this is what she was filing her rehearing case under. The hearing – tenant’s evidence and submissions
At the hearing, the tenant stated that her main concern was not about the money but the principle. The pest control issue was no longer relevant, and she did not wish to pursue this further. Her main concern was about the events surrounding her move in and the fact that her peace and quiet enjoyment had been breached. This was because of the unprofessionalism of the landlord. She noted that every time she called the landlord about the roaming dog, nothing happened. It was only seven months later that a member of the landlord’s staff attended her premises to discuss the issues. She found her moving in to be an ordeal and therefore, felt this came within section 38 of the RTA.
The tenant spoke about the evidence she had provided and discussed the landlord’s photographic evidence, noting the photographs were taken from a distance. When the landlord’s housing manager entered the house, she had her shoes on. She was not happy with the outcome. She had tried to send in her video and photographic evidence but had difficulty doing so.
The tenant clarified the issue regarding the water. She said there was running water at the premises and there was also hot water. However, the water pressure was very low, so she felt the water was dripping. She spoke about the presence of black mould outside the house. She said she had never lived in a property in New Zealand that had water like that, and that had soaking carpet. She had found it emotionally stressful and hurtful. She questioned the landlord’s evidence and asked what proof they had, noting much was hearsay evidence. She stated that the linen cupboard in the house smelt toxic and she was not prepared to clean it and use it. She felt the landlord should have checked it. She also noted the kitchen cupboards had child safe locks on them, which she did not need, and she questioned why they were there. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord said the reason for the rehearing application was that the tenant was not happy with the outcome, which was not a ground for granting a rehearing. There was no miscarriage of justice. The evidence had been carefully considered, there was an opportunity for the filing of additional evidence, and both parties were given a chance to respond. The adjudicator had also acknowledged the tenant’s frustration.
The tenant was now making the same claim under the category of a breach of quiet enjoyment, a different provision of the RTA. It relates to the expenses or costs that the tenant had to pay herself. There were also new claims regarding the roaming of the dogs, which were not part of the original application. There were no grounds for a rehearing being granted, since there had been no miscarriage of justice in this case. Tenant’s reply
In reply, the tenant stated it was not about the money, and she was not trying to get a windfall. At the time of the hearing, she did not know about a breach of quiet enjoyment. She questioned where the landlord was for the last seven months, and spoke about her interaction with the landlord’s staff who visited recently. She was clear that she was dropping the issue regarding pest control and her concern was about the move in, the stress, peace and enjoyment.
The tenant stated that her evidence had not been used to the fullest, and she had difficulties uploading her pictures and video. She did not say anything then, because she was not aware of this provision concerning quiet enjoyment. Her main issue was about the petrol, the fact that she felt there had been a breach, and the unprofessionalism and conduct. She acknowledged that while the current adjudicator had carried out her role, she wanted a fresh pair of eyes to consider her case and she wanted to exercise her rights.
The tenant also described her experience with the roaming dog and the fact that her son was attacked 2 weeks after they moved in. Her understanding is that this dog came from a property owned by the landlord. [City] Council had been helping her. She acknowledged that following the visit from the landlord’s staff, matters appeared to be on the right path. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the RTA 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the tenant’s application, her evidence and submissions, and noting the landlord’s submissions, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. The tenant presented her evidence at the hearing, and was given an opportunity to file further evidence following the hearing. This is the reason for the hearing being adjourned part-heard. In the order adjourning the hearing part-heard (dated 6 March 2025), it was noted that as the tenant was unable to produce all her evidence at the hearing, additional time was given for her to send this evidence to the Tribunal after the hearing. In the order, a timetable was set out for the exchange of additional evidence and written comments. The tenant later contacted the Tribunal, indicating that she required further time, and a revised timetable was emailed to the parties on 11 March 2025.
In addition to the evidence provided with the application and at the hearing, the tenant’s photographic and video evidence was considered, along with the emails and written evidence in support, including from two social workers who provided written statements. Both parties were given the opportunity to comment on this additional evidence, with the tenant having the final right of reply. These comments were also considered and noted in the order.
The additional evidence provided by the tenant with her rehearing application is noted. However, this new evidence is unlikely to have affected the outcome. The Tribunal already accepted that the tenant had established, with sufficient evidence, that the carpet was damp at the start of the tenancy and there was an odour from it. The landlord was found to be in breach and was liable to compensate her. When determining the quantum of compensation, factors such as the nature of the breach, effect on the tenant, and the overall circumstances were taken into account. So, the impact on the tenant of the breach was factored into the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The tenant’s main concern relates to the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy, and she has indicated that she is no longer disputing the issues concerning pest control. The tenant has submitted that, on the basis of the evidence provided, there has been a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises by the landlord under section 38 of the RTA. While noting her perspective, this reasoning will not be grounds for the granting of a rehearing, because it relates to the same circumstances, which have already been considered and determined.
Furthermore, the scope of the rehearing is confined to the issues that were raised in the original application. While it is acknowledged that the tenant only became aware, later on, about section 38 of the RTA, her original application was not about breaches under section 38. Furthermore, the other issues raised, including concerns about the roaming dog, additional maintenance issues discovered after moving in, and black mould, are outside the scope of this application. This does not prevent the tenant from filing a further application, but the rehearing will not be the forum for addressing new issues arising from the tenancy.
As noted in case law referred to above, even if the Tribunal was incorrect in its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice, since something more than a mere wrong or erroneous decision must be established.
I acknowledge the tenant’s dissatisfaction with the overall outcome and some of the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on the evidence. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to reach different conclusions on the evidence presented by the parties. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the tenant’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted.
The tenant’s reasons for seeking a rehearing have been noted. She wishes to exercise her rights, be heard, and have a fresh pair of eyes consider her claim and determine it again. She has every right to request a rehearing, although whether it is granted will depend on being able to satisfy the legal test. A rehearing is not a general forum for addressing grievances against the landlord. In this case, while the points raised are important to the tenant, they are essentially not about procedural errors but rather, about whether the decision was correct. This ultimately points to unhappiness with the decision, which does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Consequently, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
While the grounds for a rehearing have not been established, it is encouraging that the landlord has recently met with the tenant, and she has had the opportunity to discuss her concerns, including the roaming dog. Hopefully, the relationship between the tenant and landlord is now on the right path.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072049 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072049 — 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