What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266603 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 5266603?

Cleaning: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Cracked Light Switch- Lounge/Dining…: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage- Door Handle And Lock Broken…: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Light Switch- Staircase (Labour: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Purchase Handle Lock Set For Garage: $144.61 awarded to landlord; Purchase Switches And Sockets: $71.48 awarded to landlord; Remote Control Cover For Heat Pump: $38.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $55.94 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $55.94 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $83.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266603?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266603 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 5266603?

Cleaning: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Cracked Light Switch- Lounge/Dining…: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage- Door Handle And Lock Broken…: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Light Switch- Staircase (Labour: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Purchase Handle Lock Set For Garage: $144.61 awarded to landlord; Purchase Switches And Sockets: $71.48 awarded to landlord; Remote Control Cover For Heat Pump: $38.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $55.94 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $55.94 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $83.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266603?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266603 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266603 — net $576.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remote control cover for heat pump	$38.00	Remote control cover for heat pump
Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour	$15.00	Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour
Guest toilet seat replacement (labour	$10.00	Guest toilet seat replacement (labour
Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour	$10.00	Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour
Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour	$15.00	Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour
Light switch- staircase (labour	$15.00	Light switch- staircase (labour
Smoke alarm- bedroom 2	$55.94	Smoke alarm- bedroom 2
Smoke alarm- bedroom 4	$55.94	Smoke alarm- bedroom 2
Clean shower glass- bedroom 4	$35.00	Clean shower glass- bedroom 4
Purchase switches and sockets	$71.48	Purchase switches and sockets
Purchase handle lock set for garage	$144.61	Purchase handle lock set for garage
Toilet seat	$83.17	Toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$576.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$576.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants and the Tribunal were supported by a Farsi interpreter. The tenants were also supported by their representative, [name suppressed] and some other persons from services being accessed by the tenants being [names suppressed].
On, 28 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for [The tenants] to pay Able- Thomas Property Management Services Nz Limited $0.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Remote control cover for heat pump$38.00 Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour)$15.00 Guest toilet seat replacement (labour)$10.00 Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour)$10.00 Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour)$15.00 Light switch- staircase (labour)$15.00 Smoke alarm- bedroom 2$55.94 Smoke alarm- bedroom 4$55.94 Clean shower glass- bedroom 4$35.00 Purchase switches and sockets$71.48 Purchase handle lock set for garage$144.61 Toilet seat$83.17 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$576.14 Bond$576.14$2,983.86
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $3,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited: $576.91 [Names suppressed]: $2,983.86
On1 August 2025, Dr Able-Thomas from Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenants had support people that took part in the Tribunal hearing. They created confusion and they affected the court proceedings. The Tribunal procedure was not conducted on a fair level field due to other supporters interrogating the landlord; b. One of the tenant’s was on the phone during the Tribunal hearing; c. The case was prejudiced and biased towards the tenants before the start of the Tribunal hearing. The landlord was informed of the feelings and conduct of the tenants and the negative conduct of the landlord before the start of the hearing. The landlord was informed that such information came from the Court Registry. The landlord got discouraged and gave up on the Tribunal process; d. The landlord wants to reapply for name suppression since such publication would harm its business and reputation and could put it into bankruptcy and publication of its name and identifying details could put off prospective tenants; e. I failed to consider the landlord’s assertion the tenants sealed one of the wall holes before the landlord arrived at the property for a property inspection; which was against the RTA and the terms of the tenancy agreement; f. The tenants failed to respond to the 14-day notice given to them; g. The photo smashed cook-top created the electrical short-circuit to the oven. The evidence of this was not taken into consideration; and h. The landlord wants the matter to be referred back to mediation as the mediation process was bypassed and it considers the parties could come to a mutually acceptable settlement.
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?

For the following reasons Dr Able-Thomas from Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tribunal confirmed it did commence the original hearing with a review of the tenants application not to be required to attend the original hearing in person, their reasons for making this application, the reason it was denied and how the Tribunal process could and would be modified to ensure their concerns were addressed and the tenants were able to put their best defence to the Tribunal with the support of their representative and their support people. The landlord confirmed it had taken this to be prejudicial against it as it was under the belief discussing these concerns and modifying the Tribunal processes to accommodate the tenants’ concerns meant that the adjudicator had already prejudged the landlord on what the tenants had discussed with the registry before the hearing and therefore had predetermined the outcome. I confirm that the modifications to the Tribunal processes consisted of allowing the tenants support persons to ask clarifying questions on their behalf and to convey first hand evidence from their experience when they had supported the tenants during their tenancy. There was no evidence provided by the landlord that supported the claim that this modification to the Tribunal process had resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The landlord did not provide any compelling evidence that the female tenant making a less than one minute call, just before the afternoon adjournment, to have her children picked up from school, had resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties prior to and during the hearing. The landlord has confirmed in its application for rehearing that most of its claims for a rehearing were based on it disagreeing with the Tribunal’s decision, and the Adjudicator having not fully considered its evidence or having made findings in favour of the tenants when it claims there was no evidence to support the Tribunal’s finding. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that disagrees with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or relitigate its case. A rehearing is also not an alternative to an appeal.
The landlord did not present any important new evidence in its rehearing application that it could not have obtained with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.
The landlord has also made claims the Tribunal was wrong in some of its findings of fact, or its application of the law. This ground is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Again, a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal and will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give that party a second opportunity to present a better case.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That included a requirement that applicant establish her claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the areas raised by the landlord at today’s hearing that it considered to be a miscarriage of justice were about it disagreeing with the Tribunal’s findings where the landlord had failed to discharge the required burden of proof. If the landlord does not agree that it did not do so, it is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order, but it is not a ground for a rehearing.
There has been no evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing and a stay of enforcement proceedings is dismissed for all the reasons set out above and the original 28 July 2025 Tribunal Order stands and is enforceable. Name suppression
The landlord and tenants applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details in the original hearing.
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.
The landlord substantially succeeded in its original proceedings. However, I considered publication to be in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The landlord’s accusations of the tenants doing deliberate and malicious damage to the house and pathway in order to get on a social housing list is concerning, as is its claim for the cost of a cook top it was well aware the tenants had already paid to purchase and to have installed and for an oven it had not provided any evidence to prove they had damaged. The landlord’s application for its name and identifying details to be supressed was dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal ahs no ability in the rehearing consideration process to substantially amend the original order. It can only grant or dismiss the rehearing application order. Therefore, the original 28 July 2025 Order will be published without the landlord’s name and identifying details being suppressed. The landlord’s name and identifying details will also be published in relation to this Order.
The tenants also applied for name suppression during the original hearing. I did not consider publication to be in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details was ordered in relation to the original 28 July 2025 Order and also applies to this rehearing consideration Order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266603 — net $576.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remote control cover for heat pump	$38.00	Remote control cover for heat pump
Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour	$15.00	Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour
Guest toilet seat replacement (labour	$10.00	Guest toilet seat replacement (labour
Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour	$10.00	Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour
Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour	$15.00	Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour
Light switch- staircase (labour	$15.00	Light switch- staircase (labour
Smoke alarm- bedroom 2	$55.94	Smoke alarm- bedroom 2
Smoke alarm- bedroom 4	$55.94	Smoke alarm- bedroom 2
Clean shower glass- bedroom 4	$35.00	Clean shower glass- bedroom 4
Purchase switches and sockets	$71.48	Purchase switches and sockets
Purchase handle lock set for garage	$144.61	Purchase handle lock set for garage
Toilet seat	$83.17	Toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$576.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$576.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants and the Tribunal were supported by a Farsi interpreter. The tenants were also supported by their representative, [name suppressed] and some other persons from services being accessed by the tenants being [names suppressed].
On, 28 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for [The tenants] to pay Able- Thomas Property Management Services Nz Limited $0.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Remote control cover for heat pump$38.00 Cracked light switch- lounge/dining (labour)$15.00 Guest toilet seat replacement (labour)$10.00 Garage-Light switch and socket damage (labour)$10.00 Garage- door handle and lock broken (labour)$15.00 Light switch- staircase (labour)$15.00 Smoke alarm- bedroom 2$55.94 Smoke alarm- bedroom 4$55.94 Clean shower glass- bedroom 4$35.00 Purchase switches and sockets$71.48 Purchase handle lock set for garage$144.61 Toilet seat$83.17 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$576.14 Bond$576.14$2,983.86
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $3,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited: $576.91 [Names suppressed]: $2,983.86
On1 August 2025, Dr Able-Thomas from Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenants had support people that took part in the Tribunal hearing. They created confusion and they affected the court proceedings. The Tribunal procedure was not conducted on a fair level field due to other supporters interrogating the landlord; b. One of the tenant’s was on the phone during the Tribunal hearing; c. The case was prejudiced and biased towards the tenants before the start of the Tribunal hearing. The landlord was informed of the feelings and conduct of the tenants and the negative conduct of the landlord before the start of the hearing. The landlord was informed that such information came from the Court Registry. The landlord got discouraged and gave up on the Tribunal process; d. The landlord wants to reapply for name suppression since such publication would harm its business and reputation and could put it into bankruptcy and publication of its name and identifying details could put off prospective tenants; e. I failed to consider the landlord’s assertion the tenants sealed one of the wall holes before the landlord arrived at the property for a property inspection; which was against the RTA and the terms of the tenancy agreement; f. The tenants failed to respond to the 14-day notice given to them; g. The photo smashed cook-top created the electrical short-circuit to the oven. The evidence of this was not taken into consideration; and h. The landlord wants the matter to be referred back to mediation as the mediation process was bypassed and it considers the parties could come to a mutually acceptable settlement.
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?

For the following reasons Dr Able-Thomas from Able-Thomas Property Management Services NZ Limited has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tribunal confirmed it did commence the original hearing with a review of the tenants application not to be required to attend the original hearing in person, their reasons for making this application, the reason it was denied and how the Tribunal process could and would be modified to ensure their concerns were addressed and the tenants were able to put their best defence to the Tribunal with the support of their representative and their support people. The landlord confirmed it had taken this to be prejudicial against it as it was under the belief discussing these concerns and modifying the Tribunal processes to accommodate the tenants’ concerns meant that the adjudicator had already prejudged the landlord on what the tenants had discussed with the registry before the hearing and therefore had predetermined the outcome. I confirm that the modifications to the Tribunal processes consisted of allowing the tenants support persons to ask clarifying questions on their behalf and to convey first hand evidence from their experience when they had supported the tenants during their tenancy. There was no evidence provided by the landlord that supported the claim that this modification to the Tribunal process had resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The landlord did not provide any compelling evidence that the female tenant making a less than one minute call, just before the afternoon adjournment, to have her children picked up from school, had resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties prior to and during the hearing. The landlord has confirmed in its application for rehearing that most of its claims for a rehearing were based on it disagreeing with the Tribunal’s decision, and the Adjudicator having not fully considered its evidence or having made findings in favour of the tenants when it claims there was no evidence to support the Tribunal’s finding. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that disagrees with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or relitigate its case. A rehearing is also not an alternative to an appeal.
The landlord did not present any important new evidence in its rehearing application that it could not have obtained with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.
The landlord has also made claims the Tribunal was wrong in some of its findings of fact, or its application of the law. This ground is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Again, a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal and will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give that party a second opportunity to present a better case.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That included a requirement that applicant establish her claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the areas raised by the landlord at today’s hearing that it considered to be a miscarriage of justice were about it disagreeing with the Tribunal’s findings where the landlord had failed to discharge the required burden of proof. If the landlord does not agree that it did not do so, it is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order, but it is not a ground for a rehearing.
There has been no evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing and a stay of enforcement proceedings is dismissed for all the reasons set out above and the original 28 July 2025 Tribunal Order stands and is enforceable. Name suppression
The landlord and tenants applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details in the original hearing.
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.
The landlord substantially succeeded in its original proceedings. However, I considered publication to be in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The landlord’s accusations of the tenants doing deliberate and malicious damage to the house and pathway in order to get on a social housing list is concerning, as is its claim for the cost of a cook top it was well aware the tenants had already paid to purchase and to have installed and for an oven it had not provided any evidence to prove they had damaged. The landlord’s application for its name and identifying details to be supressed was dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal ahs no ability in the rehearing consideration process to substantially amend the original order. It can only grant or dismiss the rehearing application order. Therefore, the original 28 July 2025 Order will be published without the landlord’s name and identifying details being suppressed. The landlord’s name and identifying details will also be published in relation to this Order.
The tenants also applied for name suppression during the original hearing. I did not consider publication to be in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details was ordered in relation to the original 28 July 2025 Order and also applies to this rehearing consideration Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266603 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266603 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions