What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146008 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146008?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146008 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146008?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146008 — Smoke alarms

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of enforcement ordered on 30 April 2025 is now lifted.
The orders dated 22 April 2025 may now be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which was held by phone. The landlord was represented by its director, Melissa He, who also represented the landlord at the first hearing.
The hearing was convened to determine whether the landlord had established grounds for rehearing.
On 22 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders as follows:
On 24 April 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing in respect of the following issues: a. French doors b. Fixed water charge c. Cleaning and rubbish removal d. Damage to property e. Tenant wrongfully removing smoke alarm
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 the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence or 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: [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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

French doors, fixed water charges, cleaning and rubbish removal, damage to property

The landlord explained that she considered that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence, had given inappropriate weight to the evidence presented by each party, had made incorrect findings and (in relation to the compensation ordered to be paid to the tenant) had made an unjustified and excessive award. The landlord argues that the Tribunal’s findings are wrong.
I have carefully reviewed the Tribunal’s decision after hearing from both the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord may not agree with the Tribunal’s findings but that does not in itself provide grounds for a rehearing. The landlord must show some procedural error which may have led to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal.
The evidence in respect of the French doors, water charges, cleaning and rubbish removal and damage was all carefully considered. The Tribunal made findings after weighing the evidence presented.
The Tribunal discussed and weighed the evidence in respect of the compensation for the condition of the French doors at paragraphs 21 – 27.
The Tribunal gave reasons for giving very little weight to the ingoing inspection report at paragraphs 84 and 85.
The Tribunal discussed the relevant law and evidence with regard to water charges and gave reasons for its decision at paragraphs 65 – 73.
The Tribunal discussed and weighed evidence relating to all damage claimed by the landlord at paragraphs 81 – 88.
There has been no procedural error. All of the evidence has been carefully considered and weighed. The fact that the landlord does not agree with the Tribunal’s assessment does not provide grounds for a rehearing.
Where a party considers that the Tribunal is simply wrong in its findings of fact or application of law the appropriate course is to file an appeal. Removal of smoke alarm
The landlord is correct that the Tribunal did not explicitly deal with the landlord’s claim for compensation in the amount of $4,000 on the basis that the tenant had removed a smoke alarm.
It was not clear at the hearing that the landlord intended to proceed with this part of the claim as the landlord did not provide any invoice or receipts in relation to the smoke alarm. The landlord could not say when the smoke alarm was removed.
Although the landlord did not explicitly claim for exemplary damages for the removal of the smoke alarm, the amount of compensation claimed suggests that the landlord had in fact intended to seek exemplary damages for a breach of section 40(3A)(b) which provides that tenants must not interfere with means of escape from fire.
The removal of a smoke alarm does not come within section 40(3A)(b). This section relates to the need to ensure that fire escape doors are not blocked and fire escape ladders are not removed. It does not relate to smoke alarms.
Smoke alarms are covered by section 40(1)(ca) and section 138A. Exemplary damages are not available for breaches of these sections. Compensatory damages are available, but as stated above, the landlord did not provide evidence in this regard.
The issue of the smoke alarm does not provide grounds for a rehearing. Outcome
The landlord has not proved that there has been any procedural issue leading to a substantial wrong or injustice.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
It follows that the stay of enforcement ordered on 30 April 2025 is now lifted and the ordered dated 22 April 2025 may now be enforced. Name suppression
The Tribunal carries over the order for name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to this decision.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of enforcement ordered on 30 April 2025 is now lifted.
The orders dated 22 April 2025 may now be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which was held by phone. The landlord was represented by its director, Melissa He, who also represented the landlord at the first hearing.
The hearing was convened to determine whether the landlord had established grounds for rehearing.
On 22 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders as follows:
On 24 April 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing in respect of the following issues: a. French doors b. Fixed water charge c. Cleaning and rubbish removal d. Damage to property e. Tenant wrongfully removing smoke alarm
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 the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence or 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: [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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

French doors, fixed water charges, cleaning and rubbish removal, damage to property

The landlord explained that she considered that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence, had given inappropriate weight to the evidence presented by each party, had made incorrect findings and (in relation to the compensation ordered to be paid to the tenant) had made an unjustified and excessive award. The landlord argues that the Tribunal’s findings are wrong.
I have carefully reviewed the Tribunal’s decision after hearing from both the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord may not agree with the Tribunal’s findings but that does not in itself provide grounds for a rehearing. The landlord must show some procedural error which may have led to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal.
The evidence in respect of the French doors, water charges, cleaning and rubbish removal and damage was all carefully considered. The Tribunal made findings after weighing the evidence presented.
The Tribunal discussed and weighed the evidence in respect of the compensation for the condition of the French doors at paragraphs 21 – 27.
The Tribunal gave reasons for giving very little weight to the ingoing inspection report at paragraphs 84 and 85.
The Tribunal discussed the relevant law and evidence with regard to water charges and gave reasons for its decision at paragraphs 65 – 73.
The Tribunal discussed and weighed evidence relating to all damage claimed by the landlord at paragraphs 81 – 88.
There has been no procedural error. All of the evidence has been carefully considered and weighed. The fact that the landlord does not agree with the Tribunal’s assessment does not provide grounds for a rehearing.
Where a party considers that the Tribunal is simply wrong in its findings of fact or application of law the appropriate course is to file an appeal. Removal of smoke alarm
The landlord is correct that the Tribunal did not explicitly deal with the landlord’s claim for compensation in the amount of $4,000 on the basis that the tenant had removed a smoke alarm.
It was not clear at the hearing that the landlord intended to proceed with this part of the claim as the landlord did not provide any invoice or receipts in relation to the smoke alarm. The landlord could not say when the smoke alarm was removed.
Although the landlord did not explicitly claim for exemplary damages for the removal of the smoke alarm, the amount of compensation claimed suggests that the landlord had in fact intended to seek exemplary damages for a breach of section 40(3A)(b) which provides that tenants must not interfere with means of escape from fire.
The removal of a smoke alarm does not come within section 40(3A)(b). This section relates to the need to ensure that fire escape doors are not blocked and fire escape ladders are not removed. It does not relate to smoke alarms.
Smoke alarms are covered by section 40(1)(ca) and section 138A. Exemplary damages are not available for breaches of these sections. Compensatory damages are available, but as stated above, the landlord did not provide evidence in this regard.
The issue of the smoke alarm does not provide grounds for a rehearing. Outcome
The landlord has not proved that there has been any procedural issue leading to a substantial wrong or injustice.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
It follows that the stay of enforcement ordered on 30 April 2025 is now lifted and the ordered dated 22 April 2025 may now be enforced. Name suppression
The Tribunal carries over the order for name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146008 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146008 — Smoke alarms

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