What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095271 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 5095271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11420375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095271 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 5095271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11420375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095271 — Rent arrears

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing. The landlord was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
On 13 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order declaring the rent for the premises was not market rent and fixing the rent at $500 per week from 3 December 2024. The Tribunal also ordered termination of the tenancy on 10 January 2025 and (adjusted to market rent) rent and rent arrears to that date.
On 20 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The property was unlawful or unfit for habitation and this was not adequately addressed at the hearing. b. The Tribunal failed to consider mitigating factors. c. The landlord or property manager provided misleading or false information. d. The Tribunal did not apply relevant legal precedent and there were procedural errors. e. New evidence has come to light which was unavailable at the time of the original hearing.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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”.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

HAS A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURRED?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Ground 1: The property was unlawful or unfit for habitation and this was not adequately addressed at the hearing.
As discussed at the hearing on 10 December 2024, issues with the property’s condition or fitness for habitation were not raised in the tenant’s cross- application. The cross-application claimed the property should legally be considered a one-bedroom property, rather than a two-bedroom property. That was the basis on which the tenant sought an order that rent was substantially higher than market rent (for a one-bedroom equivalent property).
At the hearing to consider the re-hearing application, the tenant relied upon s78A(5) of the RTA which states that even if a tenant does not apply for a particular order relating to unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal may make an order under s78A(4)(a) on its own initiative.
However, the Tribunal may only make an order under s78A of the RTA where the applicant has filed evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the premises are, or were at any material time, an unlawful residential premise. 1 No evidence of the purported unlawfulness (aside from the size of the bedrooms) was filed by the tenant. Accordingly, there were no evidence on which the Tribunal could make such an order on its own initiative.
Ground 1 is dismissed. Ground 2: The Tribunal failed to consider mitigating factors.
The tenant says the mitigating factors related to the calculation of rent arrears and says there were communications in which the landlord and/or property manager agreed the tenant did not have to pay rent due to the property’s condition.
This ground does not identify a procedural error in relation to how the original hearing was conducted. 1 See s78A(1) of the RTA.
Ground 2 is dismissed. Ground 3: The landlord or property manager provided misleading or false information
The tenant says the Healthy Homes Standards Report which the landlord or property manager filed shortly before the hearing was misleading and inaccurate. The tenant says the report was only filed shortly before the hearing and she did not have opportunity to review it, and therefore raise the errors, at the original hearing.
While I accept the report was filed only shortly before the hearing, any inaccuracies within the report were inconsequential. The issues raised at the hearing related to whether the property had two lawful bedrooms. Neither party made claims relating to Healthy Homes Standards.
Ground 3 is dismissed. Ground 4: The Tribunal did not apply relevant legal precedent and there were procedural errors
The tenant says the Tribunal did not apply relevant legal precedent in that the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and was unlawful. The procedural errors were said to be the tenant’s lack of understanding and experience. The tenant says she wasn’t able to present her evidence appropriately and did not have enough time between being notified of the hearing and the hearing date to produce all the information necessary.
As previously stated, the tenant’s cross-application did not seek damages relating to the Healthy Homes Standards. It was not an issue raised by the tenant in her application, and therefore was not a matter I determined.
The procedural issues raised do not relate to procedural errors by the Tribunal.
Ground 4 is dismissed. Ground 5: New evidence has come to light which was unavailable at the time of the original hearing
The tenant says that, following the Tribunal’s order declaring the premises was legally a one-bedroom unit, the tenant states the remaining bedroom is itself only suitable for a single occupant and should not have been rented to two people (being the tenant and a flatmate). The tenant also says she has been in communication with the Council regarding whether the premises is compliant in respect of matters like the septic tank, driveway and other matters.
The tenant did not file any new evidence in relation to the bedrooms or evidence obtained from the Council.
The evidence relating to the size of the remaining bedroom is not relevant. The tenant’s original application claimed the second bedroom was too small to be a legal bedroom, and that was the focus of the evidence at the hearing on 10 December 2024. The size of the first bedroom, which the tenant now refers to, was not in issue. The new evidence relating to the first bedroom is irrelevant to the issues raised in the tenant’s application.
The other new evidence to which the tenant referred was communications with the Council. The tenant did not file any new evidence and it is unclear how communications with the Council would have impacted the issues considered at the first hearing. To the extent that evidence relates to the premises’ lawfulness for residential purposes or relates to Healthy Homes Standards, I note that those issues were not before me at the original hearing and I would therefore not consider any such new evidence relevant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095271 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095271 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

HAS A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURRED?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

HAS A SUBSTANTIAL WRONG OR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURRED?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions