What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5179832 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 5179832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179832?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12508437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5179832 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 5179832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179832?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12508437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Mana Drive, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5179832 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

On 31 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages for breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

On 6 August At Home Property Management Limited Acting Agent For J And [The landlord/s] And [The landlord/s] a) Relevant evidence was not considered. b) Subjective reasoning was used in the decision making process. c) Based on previous decisions of the Tribunal, correct application of the legislation was not applied.

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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord sought the rehearing and during the hearing the tenants agreed that they would also like to have a rehearing.

The tenancy Tribunal cannot grant a rehearing just because both parties want one. This is not the correct process if the parties are seeking to have a second opportunity to make their case. It is not to be used as an easier alternative to an appeal. The parties must establish grounds for a rehearing to be granted and the grounds need to be more than their belief that a wrong decision has been made.

The only application for a rehearing before the Tribunal was from the landlord and this is what is considered.

For the following reasons The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord did not attend the original telephone hearing and did have an adjournment granted. The claims the landlord made of what was presented, considered or not during the hearing are based on the evidence as filed by the tenants. It is not up to the tenancy Tribunal to lead the claims of parties who do not attend to a hearing, and if evidence was not mentioned in a decision, it does not mean it was not considered. The landlord raised smoke alarm evidence they provided in their application. The tenants said they had evidence to refute this. This hearing’s purpose was not to rehear resubmitted claims. I do not find that there was any error in the Tribunals procedure in relation to the evidence.

The landlord disputed the Tribunals application of the law in reference to the contents of 14-day notice. They claimed subjective reasoning was used with no legislative grounds and weighted to the tenants’ rights to quiet enjoyment. The tenants have raised their concerns during the original hearing and a decision was made based on the evidence provided. The structure of the decision is not a ground on which a rehearing can be granted.

The Landlord compared previous decisions made by the Tribunal when considering claims for breaches of quiet enjoyment and stated that the Tribunal did not follow the considerations used in previous determinations. The landlord said that in following the current decision it would have the effect of tying the hands of property managers when acting in their roles. The Tribunal considers every application on its own merits and is not strictly bound by the findings of previous applications or reasonings of previous decisions.

I find that it was also not established that anything went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, or any new unavailable evidence was found. I do not find that any of the grounds raised by the landlord establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may occur.

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

On 31 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages for breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord sought the rehearing and during the hearing the tenants agreed that they would also like to have a rehearing.

The only application for a rehearing before the Tribunal was from the landlord and this is what is considered.

For the following reasons The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179832 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Mana Drive, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179832 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Mana Drive, Baverstock, Hamilton 3200

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.