What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256920 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5256920?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256920?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256920 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5256920?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256920?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Howe Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256920 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.

On 27/8/2025 the Tribunal Made an order as follows: a. Application 5256920 by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation of $1,306.96 and exemplary damages is dismissed, b. Application 5221392 by the tenants for exemplary damages is dismissed, c. The Bond Centre was to pay the tenants the balance of the bond of $1,306.96.

The same day the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: “Abuse of Power incompetence, or gross incompetence & or negligence dumb/stupid breach of natural justice unfairness, unfair procedure malice, lies, more dirty lies”

At the hearing the landlord submitted the following: a. She did not believe she was listened to because the date of installation of the heat pump was March not May 2025, b. Clause 24 of the Order recorded that there was no chattels list provided in evidence when one was produced for the 31 July 2025 hearing, c. Clause 30 of the Order recorded no tenancy agreement had been provided confirming the existence of smoke alarms when these had been included in the chattels list, d. The time delay for the bond being in dispute relied on in clause 74 was the fault of both parties and should not be held against the landlord, e. A written statement relied on by one tenant had not been provided to the landlord at the hearing.

The tenants did not want a rehearing because they believed the dispute had been resolved and for that reason had decided not to make a further application for compensation for cleaning and lack of vacant possession. Law

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”.

In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. 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. 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 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 this 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.

The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.

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?

I accept that the Tribunal made a mistake in wrongly suggesting in the Order that the landlord had not provided a chattels list or tenancy agreement.

Those documents are on the file from the first hearing on 31/7/2025.

However, although a mistake was made, I do not consider this amounts to a miscarriage of justice and I have not granted a rehearing.

The reasons for this are: a. Despite the mistake the original decision of 27/8/2025 does not need to be altered because of the relatively small amount involved. b. The total claim by the landlord was $1,306.96 of which $170.57 was for rent arrears. c. The amount claimed for replacement of chattels by the landlord was $74.26 as follows: i. $10.00 for a stool, ii. $14.84 for a mop, iii. $ 2.52 for a plunger, iv. $46.90 for a desk. d. The landlord was partly successful in the compensation claim, although the amount was not quantified. e. I consider that the failure to award the $74.26, less any depreciation for the stool and desk does not amount to a substantial wrong. f. Irrespective of whether the heat pump was installed in March or May 2025, the effective Healthy Homes Standards compliance date for this tenancy was 30/4/2024, meaning that the landlord committed an unlawful act by breaching Healthy Homes Standards. g. While the two smoke alarms were mentioned in the chattels list and a photograph provided of where one alarm was situated, I do not consider the evidence sufficient to prove, to the necessary standard, that the tenants removed the alarm and if they did so whether it was because the alarm didn’t work or for some other unknown reason. h. The landlord was unsuccessful with the damages part of the compensation claim of $119.31 and did not suggest this part of the decision was wrong. i. Considering the provisions of section 49 the Tribunal is entitled to take into account what is considers a lengthy delay in refunding the bond, in particular when it took the landlord five and a half months to lodge her application to the Tribunal, being six weeks after the tenants lodged their claim for refund of the bond. j. The reason why the written statement relied on by one of the tenants was read out during the hearing rather than a copy being supplied to the landlord at the time was due to an administrative difficulty with the acting registrar not having access to the relevant email address. k. While the landlord may have difficulties with her hearing, she did not tell the Tribunal at the time that she unable to hear what was being read out.

I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.

The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.

This tenancy ended nine months ago, and I consider it is appropriate that the dispute which did not involve a significant amount was determined in a timely manner.

However, I understand the landlord has already appealed the decision on the same grounds as used for the rehearing.

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I accept that the Tribunal made a mistake in wrongly suggesting in the Order that the landlord had not provided a chattels list or tenancy agreement.

Those documents are on the file from the first hearing on 31/7/2025.

However, although a mistake was made, I do not consider this amounts to a miscarriage of justice and I have not granted a rehearing.

I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.

The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.

This tenancy ended nine months ago, and I consider it is appropriate that the dispute which did not involve a significant amount was determined in a timely manner.

However, I understand the landlord has already appealed the decision on the same grounds as used for the rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256920 — Rent arrears at 45 Howe Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256920 — Rent arrears at 45 Howe Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.