What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344241 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 5344241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344241 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 5344241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 1, 70 Alexandra Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344241 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 12 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order awarding the tenants’ compensation relating mainly to unreasonable gaps and draughts around windows. The parties’ other claims were dismissed.
On 20 November Ms Brack applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was not named in the tenants’ original application, she did not receive notice of the hearing, and she was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing.
Subsequently, the landlords have added another ground for a rehearing, namely that there is new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided at the original hearing and that may have made a difference to the outcome.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
For the following reasons the landlords have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The first ground can be dealt shortly. Ms Brack confirmed that she was aware of the tenants’ application and the hearing date. I would have been very surprised if it were otherwise considering she is a joint landlord with Mr Brack.
It follows that if she had had wanted to participate in the hearing, she had the opportunity to do so. She was also of course able to have input into defending the application.
When this point was put to her, her response was that she should have been named in the application and served with it and it was not her responsibility to apply to be joined as a party.
With respect to Ms Brack, that misses the point. As a landlord she was entitled to attend and participate in the hearing, and she chose not to do so. She had no obligation to add herself to the application, but a party who is aware of an application against them, whether as a joint landlord or a joint tenant, and chooses not to participate in the proceeding, cannot later complain about not being heard and expect to have a rehearing of the application.
This Tribunal’s resources are limited, and its time and the time of the parties involved is valuable. If a person with an interest in an application is not willing to help themselves, they cannot expect the Tribunal to help them.
There are other reasons why this ground lacks merit, but the reason just given is sufficient to dispose of it.
As to the second ground, this rests on the ingoing inspection report. The landlords said that they did not see the report until after the hearing. It showed wooden blocks fixed to two of the windows. They were installed by Mr Adler who gave evidence at the hearing. The landlords say that photographs taken during the tenancy show that the blocks had been removed. The landlords say that they were removed by the tenants and that this could have caused gaps around the windows.
I note that the landlords had access to the report before the hearing. It was held by their agent. In my view, it is reasonable to expect the landlords to satisfy themselves that they have the relevant evidence from their agent before the hearing. The reports are clearly identified and any misunderstanding as to what reports the landlords had or didn’t have is their responsibility. It follows that the evidence could reasonably have been produced and relied on at the hearing.
I note as well that Mr Adler, who installed the blocks and carried out the remedial work to the windows, gave detailed evidence at the hearing. If the blocks that he installed were missing and that could be relevant to the issue of gaps around the windows, he would surely have referred to the fact. That he didn’t, suggests either that he removed them (as the tenants say he did), or their removal was not relevant.
The tenants deny removing the blocks and say that Mr Adler removed them during the remedial work. I found all witnesses at the hearing to be credible and reliable and I have no reason to think that the tenants removed the blocks and are now falsely denying it.
I also think it is unlikely that the blocks are relevant to the issue of gaps around the windows. It seems that were installed because there was an incident with a window falling into the premises. The blocks were installed to prevent that from happening again. There is no evidence that they could have prevented the gaps around the windows that the tenants complained of. Those gaps were the result of windows slipping, not falling in.
For these reasons I find that there is no new evidence that could not reasonably have been produced at the hearing and that even if the issue of the blocks had been raised at the hearing, it would not have made any difference to the outcome.
I therefore decline to order a rehearing.

Order

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

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 12 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order awarding the tenants’ compensation relating mainly to unreasonable gaps and draughts around windows. The parties’ other claims were dismissed.
On 20 November Ms Brack applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was not named in the tenants’ original application, she did not receive notice of the hearing, and she was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing.
Subsequently, the landlords have added another ground for a rehearing, namely that there is new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided at the original hearing and that may have made a difference to the outcome.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
For the following reasons the landlords have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The first ground can be dealt shortly. Ms Brack confirmed that she was aware of the tenants’ application and the hearing date. I would have been very surprised if it were otherwise considering she is a joint landlord with Mr Brack.
It follows that if she had had wanted to participate in the hearing, she had the opportunity to do so. She was also of course able to have input into defending the application.
When this point was put to her, her response was that she should have been named in the application and served with it and it was not her responsibility to apply to be joined as a party.
With respect to Ms Brack, that misses the point. As a landlord she was entitled to attend and participate in the hearing, and she chose not to do so. She had no obligation to add herself to the application, but a party who is aware of an application against them, whether as a joint landlord or a joint tenant, and chooses not to participate in the proceeding, cannot later complain about not being heard and expect to have a rehearing of the application.
This Tribunal’s resources are limited, and its time and the time of the parties involved is valuable. If a person with an interest in an application is not willing to help themselves, they cannot expect the Tribunal to help them.
There are other reasons why this ground lacks merit, but the reason just given is sufficient to dispose of it.
As to the second ground, this rests on the ingoing inspection report. The landlords said that they did not see the report until after the hearing. It showed wooden blocks fixed to two of the windows. They were installed by Mr Adler who gave evidence at the hearing. The landlords say that photographs taken during the tenancy show that the blocks had been removed. The landlords say that they were removed by the tenants and that this could have caused gaps around the windows.
I note that the landlords had access to the report before the hearing. It was held by their agent. In my view, it is reasonable to expect the landlords to satisfy themselves that they have the relevant evidence from their agent before the hearing. The reports are clearly identified and any misunderstanding as to what reports the landlords had or didn’t have is their responsibility. It follows that the evidence could reasonably have been produced and relied on at the hearing.
I note as well that Mr Adler, who installed the blocks and carried out the remedial work to the windows, gave detailed evidence at the hearing. If the blocks that he installed were missing and that could be relevant to the issue of gaps around the windows, he would surely have referred to the fact. That he didn’t, suggests either that he removed them (as the tenants say he did), or their removal was not relevant.
The tenants deny removing the blocks and say that Mr Adler removed them during the remedial work. I found all witnesses at the hearing to be credible and reliable and I have no reason to think that the tenants removed the blocks and are now falsely denying it.
I also think it is unlikely that the blocks are relevant to the issue of gaps around the windows. It seems that were installed because there was an incident with a window falling into the premises. The blocks were installed to prevent that from happening again. There is no evidence that they could have prevented the gaps around the windows that the tenants complained of. Those gaps were the result of windows slipping, not falling in.
For these reasons I find that there is no new evidence that could not reasonably have been produced at the hearing and that even if the issue of the blocks had been raised at the hearing, it would not have made any difference to the outcome.
I therefore decline to order a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344241 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 1, 70 Alexandra Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344241 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 1, 70 Alexandra Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions