What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185933 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5185933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185933?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12688247-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185933 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5185933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185933?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12688247-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185933 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 22 July 2025. Background

On 22 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order apportioning the bond of $1,800.00. The landlord was awarded rent, cleaning, painting, and kitchen bench repair costs totalling $1,583.07. The tenant was awarded $100.00 as compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. The sum of $316.93 was refunded to the tenant from the bond.

On 27 May 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing. In the application form the tenant said: • He did not know there was a time limit for harassment claims. • He was not liable for marks on the wall because that was where his bed was. • The kitchen bench was damaged because it was of poor quality.

The tenant introduced further arguments at the hearing: (a) The Tribunal failed to ensure procedural fairness by not requiring the property manager to submit a full breakdown of the rent charges. I note that there is a detailed rent summary on the file, and this was referred to in the decision. As also noted in the decision, the tenant agreed that a small sum was due for rent to the end of the tenancy. (b) The landlord’s photographs were misleading and duplicative. The tenant’s photographs clearly demonstrated that the property had been left in a clean and tidy state. The Tribunal failed to apply the reasonably clean and tidy standard, which does not require professional cleaning. The tenant’s evidence had been ignored without justification, and he was not given an opportunity to address alleged cleaning deficiencies before charges were imposed – a breach of tenants’ rights under the legislation. (c) The Tribunal made no real effort to evaluate whether the scuff marks were fair wear and tear after a tenancy of 2½ years. There was no third-party assessment to justify full painting costs. The amount claimed ($765.93) was excessive. The Tribunal’s decision ignored legal precedent establishing wear and tear from damage. (d) The kitchen benchtop had seen extensive use prior to his tenancy. Minor wear from normal kitchen use was mischaracterised as damage. The Tribunal acknowledged the age of the fixture but failed to apply depreciation. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the marks were careless and there were no receipts or proof of payment. (e) The Tribunal vastly under-represented the frequency, severity, and emotional toll of the landlord’s repeated unauthorised entries and disregard for his privacy. The timing of the conduct fell well within the statutory period under section 109(2) of the Act. The amount awarded ($100.00) was grossly inadequate for repeated violations of section 38 of the Act. (f) Despite succeeding on the harassment issue, he was denied name suppression and a filing fee refund. The Tribunal incorrectly applied the success threshold by not considering the underlying merit of his case. A fair decision would have resulted in at least partial suppression and a fee adjustment. 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 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 – “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 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...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506). Miscarriage of Justice

Responding to the tenant’s submissions set out above, I note: • The Tribunal addressed the tenant’s view that the landlord’s photographs were misleading in its decision and did not agree. The Tribunal also noted the tenant’s photographs, and carefully reviewed the file (which extended to more than 400 pages) before the decision was issued. The Tribunal had in mind the appropriate standard of cleanliness under the Act when making its decision. Contrary to the tenant’s belief, after a tenancy ends there is no right of access to perform further cleaning. • There were marks on the walls in the bedroom and lounge. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy in these and other respects, which were identified. The amount awarded ($765.93) reflected the invoice for cleaning the kitchen bench and balustrade and for wall painting provided by the landlord. When comparing the invoices for cleaning to the photographs, I did not find them unreasonable. • The Tribunal considered the tenant’s view that the damage to the kitchen benchtop was fair wear and tear given its age. I considered that the burns, stains and cut marks went beyond fair wear and tear. The premises were insured, and the landlord claimed $300.00 as a contribution towards the insurance excess. As the landlord noted, this is likely to be considerably less than the cost of replacing the benchtop. Given the modest award, it was unnecessary to consider depreciation. • The tenant considers that the compensation awarded for breach of his quiet enjoyment ($100.00) was inadequate. The file shows that there were considerable difficulties in the tenant’s relationship with the landlord and the building managers, including concerns about his behaviour. The Tribunal noted the delay between the incidents and the application. There was also limited documentary evidence supporting this part of the tenant’s claim. I remain of the view that the few identifiable incidents complained of were minor, whether they justified a larger award or not. For the reasons given previously, I still consider that the application for exemplary damages was out of time. • Contrary to the tenant’s submission, name suppression was granted to both parties. Costs are at the discretion of the Tribunal. The parties were required to bear their own costs. If anything, the landlord probably had a stronger claim to reimbursement of the filing fee, given that the greater portion of the bond was refunded to them.

The tenant disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision and says, essentially, that it was wrong in its findings of fact or law. The tenant expresses a view contrary to the findings of the Tribunal, which of course he is entitled to do. However, being unhappy with a decision does not provide grounds for a rehearing. The alleged procedural failures are variations on the same merits-focussed narrative, and do not establish a breach of natural justice.

I find it has not been established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 22 July 2025. Background

I find it has not been established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185933 — Cleanliness in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185933 — Cleanliness in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions