What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300405 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5300405?

The reconciled net award was $1,525.50.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300405?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300405?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13342147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300405 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5300405?

The reconciled net award was $1,525.50.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300405?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300405?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13342147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300405 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal order dated 17 December 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 March 2026 which was set down to consider whether an application for rehearing should be granted.
On 17 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent and water arrears and vacated compensation costs following the end of the tenancy calculated as follows: Rent arrearsto 9/07/2025 Water rates to July 2025 $2,836.43 $81.07 Previous order application 5300405 dated 01/09/2025 $650.00 Cleaning$300.00 Rubbish removal$780.00 Repairs: Wall$450.00 Other$28.00 Total award$5,125.50 Minus Bond$3,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,525.50
On 19 December 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing.
The bond has already been refunded to the landlord. The 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”.
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.
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.”

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The grounds claimed by the landlord can be summarised as follows and will be addressed in turn:
Procedural unfairness in determination of the water charges (a)The landlord claimed that during the hearing the adjudicator stated that maintenance issues raised by the tenant were not being considered and in reliance on those statements the landlord did not lead further evidence addressing maintenance issues or their relationship to water consumption. The landlord stated that they understood the water decision would be confined to leak attribution and usage. (b)At the hearing on 17 December 2025 the landlord claimed water charges of $611.43 as recorded in the Tribunal order not $694.61 as recorded in the grounds for rehearing. The evidence filed by the landlord at the hearing on 17 December 2025 included a water statement which recorded water of $611.43. (c)The landlord provided a different water statement at the application for rehearing in the sum of $694.61. The property manager explained there had been a change in system and stated “we believe the new one is a true reflection”. As the water charges arose at least three months prior to the hearing on 17 December 2025 I do not accept that this new evidence was not reasonably available at the hearing. (d)The Tribunal did not determine a counter claim by the tenant for failure to maintain and determined the water claims based on whether the landlord had proved to the required standard that the amount claimed was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation or usage. (e)The fact that the landlord provided evidence at the rehearing application of a different water amount than that claimed at the hearing confirms the landlord records were not clear and supports the Tribunal finding that the landlord did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the amount claimed was exclusively attributable to the tenant usage. (f)The landlord presented extensive evidence regarding water charges at the hearing on 17 December 2025. The tenant also presented evidence in response. The Tribunal considered the evidence and made a decision which is explained in the order dated 17 December 2025. (g)If the adjudicator was wrong in their findings then that is a matter for appeal.
Failure to give adequate reasons (a)The landlord claimed that at the hearing on 17 December 2025 the adjudicator stated the water claim would be reduced from $694.61 to $463.89 and failed to give explanation for the different amount ordered. (b)The amount of $694.61 was not referred to at the previous hearing as the landlord was seeking $611.43 at that time. (c) During the hearing a discussion took place about reducing the water arrears taking in to account an exterior leak and rebates to $463.89. Following this discussion the tenant provided evidence of a second leak in the premises from the toilet which the landlord had the opportunity to respond to. (d) After consideration of all the evidence presented at the hearing the adjudicator made a finding that the landlord had not proved the water charges claimed were exclusively attributable to the tenant’s usage and therefore declined to order the water arrears with the exception of the July 2025 water invoice of $81.07 which arose after the leaks were repaired. The reasoning for this was stated in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order dated 17 December 2025 as follows: “21.Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the amount of $611.43 claimed for water is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s usage due to leaks at the premises resulting in increased charges in May and June 2025. Although there has been a rebate from Watercare this has not adequately addressed the increased charges and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the balance.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the July 2025 invoice in the sum of $81.07 following the leak repair and no payment was made for this invoice. The final invoice of $3.05 to 29 July 2025 is not proved as the tenant was not living in the premises.” (e)It is noted that at the hearing on 11 March 2026 the landlord submitted that in their opinion a fair outcome was an order of $325.79 based off the new amount claimed of $694.61. This amount is only $244.72 more than the amount ordered. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Inconsistency in reasoning (a)The landlord claimed that the Tribunal failed to undertake an assessment of reasonable tenant-attributable consumption during the leak period and therefore misapplied section 39. (b)It is not the responsibility of the Tribunal to undertake an assessment of reasonable tenant-attributable consumption. The grounds for ordering water charges under section 39 are that tenants are responsible for water charges exclusively attributable to their occupation or usage. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim. The landlord sought payment of $611.43 at the hearing. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the landlord proved this claim on the balance of probabilities with the exception of the July 2025 invoice.
Cleaning (a)The landlord claimed that the Tribunal failed to properly apply section 40(1)(e) in respect of cleaning and rubbish removal, failed to give reasons for partial apportionment of cleaning costs and failed to consider the impact of rubbish on cleaning. (b)The Tribunal considered the evidence and made a finding on the evidence regarding compensation. The reasoning is recorded in paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Tribunal order dated 17 December 2025 which considers the evidence filed including the exit inspection, cleaning needed after rubbish removal, the cleaning invoice dated more one month after the tenants vacated which contained no itemised detail of work done and the tenant evidence. The Tribunal made a finding on the evidence before it. If the Adjudicator erred in the application of section 40(1)(e) that is a matter for appeal.
Rent arrears (a) The landlord claims that the Tribunal wrongly determined the amount of rent arrears and the end date of the tenancy. The landlord sets out a number of grounds under this point which can be summarised as stating that the Adjudicator erred in assessing the evidence. (b) The Adjudicator considered the evidence in paragraphs 22 to 27 of the decision dated 17 December and in paragraph 28 recorded the findings as follows: “28. I have considered the evidence in this case and find that in this situation the landlord waived the right to seek rent beyond 9 July 2025 for the following reasons: (a)The landlord and the tenant had a conversation about rent arrears and although they dispute the detail of this conversation I accept the tenant’s evidence that she understood the landlord wished her to leave the tenancy and this is supported by the evidence that shortly afterwards the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy. (b)Upon becoming aware that the tenant had vacated the landlord took possession of the premises on 9 July 2025. (c)Therefore rent arrears to 9 July 2025 are ordered in the sum of $2836.43.” (c) If the Adjudicator was wrong in this decision that was a matter for appeal not rehearing.
For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a)The decision of the District Court referred to in paragraph 8 above states that there is a high standard for an applicant to prove an application for rehearing. (b)The landlord was heard in full in the hearing of the substantive issues on 17 December 2025. The evidence and submissions of both parties were taken into account in the decision. The landlord competently presented their case at the first hearing and was substantially successful. (c)The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has proved that they were not able to properly present their case. No further evidence was presented at the hearing on 11 March 2026 that was not reasonably available at the first hearing that could affect the outcome. (d)While the landlord claims partly concern procedural issues in relation to the water claim, and this has been addressed in this decision, the central issue is that the landlord disagrees with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in respect of the claims with which they were not wholly successful. They disagree with the interpretation, of sections 39 and 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and with the Tribunal’s findings on the evidence. However, that is not a process defect and therefore is not a matter for a rehearing. If the Tribunal is wrong in its decision that is a matter for an appeal.
For the reasons outlined above the landlord has not proved that there has or may have been or is likely to be a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there are no grounds for a rehearing under section 105. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed and the order dated 17 December 2025 stands. Suppression
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The previous orders involving these parties have suppression granted and therefore I order suppression of all identifying details in this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300405 — Leaks

Award balance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300405 — Leaks

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions