What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5193571?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5193571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193571?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5193571?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5193571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193571?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 506, 320 Mansfield Street, Newtown, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193571 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 6 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order dismissing Ms Buchanan’s claim.
On 12 May 2025, Ms Buchanan applied for a rehearing on the grounds that; a. She felt intimidated at the hearing by the presence of 5 staff members employed by the landlord present at the hearing, with two staff members speaking and three sitting in the Public gallery; b. The landlord “dumped” a large volume of documents on the tenant at the hearing which she had not seen before and which she did not have the opportunity to properly read, consider and respond to at the hearing. c. The above caused the tenant to be overwhelmed and “befuddled”; d. There should be a rehearing where both partiers are equally informed, equally prepared, and with equal number of speakers.
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”.
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?

For the following reasons, Ms Buchanan has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Number of participants
In relation to those present at the hearing, there were five employees of the landlord present at the hearing. However, three sat in the public gallery. The Tribunal is a public forum and is open to the public. Anyone may attend a hearing and sit in the public gallery. However, Mr van Schalkwyk was the main speaker for the landlord. Ms Ericson spoke briefly about the Otago University research project that Ms Buchanan participated in regarding monitoring the temperatures inside her flat.
As this was Ms Buchanan’s application, she spoke first and presented her case. I consider that she made a thorough and articulate presentation covering all her points and speaking to the evidence she provided in advance of the hearing which comprised of approximately 18 documents and over 70 pages. The evidence included the Otago University Study, multiple articles, and journals about overheating in houses, and email correspondence with the landlord. She also handed up a witness statement and a full copy of the research study report at the hearing. Given that this was Ms Buchanan’s application, she had the onus of proving her claim on the balance of probabilities.
As a general proposition, a fair and just hearing does not mean that each party must have the same number of speakers or supporters present in the room.
I am satisfied that Ms Buchanan had ample opportunity to present all her evidence and submissions and I did not apprehend that she was “befuddled” or unable to present her case. On the contrary, she impressed as someone able to speak and communicate well. Documents
In relation to the bundle of documents presented by the landlord, it is true that a large bundle was presented by the landlord at the hearing and not filed in advance. Ms Buchanan on the other hand had filed most of her documents in advance of the hearing. However, this is normal practice in the Tribunal with the notice of hearing advising both parties that they may bring their evidence on the hearing day.
Section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal is designed to be less formal and to provide more immediate access for that purpose. This necessarily means that, unlike the District Court, the procedural rules and requirement for pre-hearing disclosure of documents are more informal and there is no strict requirement that parties must disclose evidence in advance. The Tribunal has a discretion to make directions for filing of evidence. However, this is usually for longer or more complex cases where a case conference is first scheduled to consider any necessary directions.
Ms Buchanan complains that she did not have any opportunity to properly read, consider and respond to the landlord’s bundle of documents. However, I note that Mr van Schalkwyk guided the tenant and the Tribunal through the relevant documents and Ms Buchanan had a right of reply and an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification. Again, I did not apprehend that Ms Buchanan was overwhelmed or unable to respond and she did not raise an issue at the hearing about needing further time to review the documents.
The landlord’s documents included the tenancy agreement, Healthy Homes statement and many email communications between the landlord and the tenant and/or notices sent out to tenants in the building generally, which Ms Buchanan would be aware of. Many of these emails had also been produced in evidence by Ms Buchanan. I accept the landlord’s advice that these documents were included to demonstrate the landlord’s engagement with the tenant but were not relevant to the critical issue that the Tribunal was called on to decide. The landlord also produced copies of code compliance certificates and building warrant of fitness documents to show that the building Ms Buchanan resides in is fully compliant with current legislation. Again, those documents were not critical to the issue the Tribunal had to determine, except to show the building complies with current legislation.
In summary, I consider that many of the documents produced by the landlord were not relevant to the decision made. Therefore, it was not necessary for the tenant to comment on them. Had the landlord produced documents that required a considered response by the tenant, then I would likely have adjourned the hearing to afford Ms Buchanan that opportunity. New evidence/submissions
I asked Ms Buchanan to advise what further submissions or evidence she wished to raise in response to the documents filed by the landlord. She advised that she was unable to present this information because she understood that she could only raise procedural issues, so had only prepared for that. I note that in my order dated 20 May 2025 I set out the matters that the Tribunal would consider for a rehearing including the wording in paragraph 5 above: “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 notes attached to the original order also set out what is required as follows: Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available. You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing.
Ms Buchanan says she would like another hearing to bring new evidence. She mentioned that there are other articles that deal with cooling of buildings that she would like to present and a recent Tribunal decision that is relevant. She also suggested that she might amend her claim to argue that there is a lack of ventilation at the premises which is not the claim that she originally advanced.
Ms Buchanan’s original claim was that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. In particular, she claims that there is clear evidence that the premises are prone to overheating in the summer to the extent that the indoor temperature of the premises exceeds recommended thresholds, including those of the World Health Organisation. She says that the overheating is adversely affecting her health and well-being. She seeks compensation from the landlord for failing to address this issue over the course of her tenancy. She also seeks reimbursement of the costs she incurred to purchase a portable air conditioning unit in January 2025 which has largely remedied the problem. She did not file a claim alleging that the landlord has not complied with healthy homes standards regarding ventilation requirements.
The issue the Tribunal determined was whether the landlord was in breach of any of its obligations under the RTA by failing to take measures to prevent overheating of the premises and whether it was liable to reimburse the tenant for the purchase of an air-conditioning unit and any additional compensation.
I concluded, based on current legislation, that there is no obligation on landlords to keep buildings cool. There are no regulatory or legislative “cooling requirements” for buildings, nor any requirements on landlords to ensure that buildings maintain certain indoor temperatures in summer. The tenancy agreement records that the RTA applies, and the landlord has not agreed to more extensive obligations than those imposed by the RTA. The landlord must comply with healthy homes ventilation standards but this doesn’t require them to supply air conditioning units nor ensure buildings maintain a certain indoor temperature in summer.
I consider that any presentation by Ms Buchanan of further articles on the subject (which in any event she has not provided details of) will not change the outcome of the hearing, given that the conclusions reached were based on the current state of the law rather than a decision based on evidence of the parties.
I have also reviewed the Tribunal case that Ms Buchanan referred to of Staircase Property Management Limited v Tenant. 1 That case does not suggest that a landlord has an obligation to keep buildings cooled to a certain temperature, or supply air conditioning in addition to HHS ventilation requirements. The case involved a complaint that the premises overheated and that the tenant was not told that the air conditioning system costs were separately charged by the Body Corporate. The tenant sought to end the fixed term tenancy early under s66 RTA on the grounds that the overheating/lack of ventilation and air conditioning costs were a change of circumstances causing severe hardship. The Tribunal found there were no grounds to terminate on that basis. The Tribunal commented that the tenant may have a claim about the landlord failing to comply with ventilation requirements but this was not the claim advanced at the hearing. However, the parties agreed to end the tenancy early after replacement tenants were found.
In summary, the tenant has not advised me of any new submissions, case law or further evidence that would change the outcome of the hearing. If the tenant wishes to pursue a different claim alleging breach of the healthy homes ventilation standard, then she may do so, but that is not a basis to grant a rehearing. Other submissions
Ms Buchanan advised at the hearing that she made a formal complaint to the landlord which was determined by the Chief Executive who found no substance to the complaint. She set out in some detail why she felt the complaints process was flawed. She has therefore referred her complaint further to the Community Housing Regulatory Authority. She also raised issues about privacy concerns regarding documents produced at the hearing by the landlord which she has referred to the Privacy Commissioner. The landlord noted that they have 1 Staircase Property Management Limited v Tenant [2025] NZTT 5200652 complied with requests for information from both organisations and have received no further requests or feedback.
While I acknowledge Ms Buchanan’s concerns and complaints, the Tenancy Tribunal can only consider her complaints in the context of s105 RTA and the grounds for a rehearing.
After careful consideration of the matters raised, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have, occurred or is likely to occur. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
At the hearing, Ms Buchanan requested that her name and identifying details be suppressed. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. As Ms Buchanan has not succeeded with her claims, no suppression order is granted. K Stirling, 18 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193571 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 506, 320 Mansfield Street, Newtown, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193571 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 506, 320 Mansfield Street, Newtown, Wellington

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