How much money was awarded in case 5407739?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407739?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5407739?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407739?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Chaucer Road South, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407739 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407739 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

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.

The stay of proceedings in the Tribunal’s Order dated 5 March 2026 is lifted and that Order may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

On 24 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order that the Landlord pay the tenants compensation and exemplary damages.

On 25 February 2026 the landlord applied for a rehearing.

The grounds set out in the application for rehearing were that: a. there were material errors of fact in the Tribunal’s understanding of the timeline; b. other relevant evidence was overlooked or given insufficient weight; c. evidence was not taken into account regarding the work done by the tenants to silicone the shower; d. the findings about the landlord having harassed the tenants were made based on a misunderstanding of the relevant timeline; e. the harassment findings were inconsistent with the tenants having remained in the tenancy for another 3 months; f. the decision was influenced by judicial bias, collusion and retaliation.

At this hearing the landlord confirmed that ground 4 f. is withdrawn and does not need to be addressed. Grounds for Rehearing

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?

Timeline

The landlord is correct that the Order mistakenly gives a date for a property inspection as 28 November 2025, when it took place on 11 November 2025.

The landlord says that is of fundamental importance because it meant that when she issued a 14 day Notice on 28 November, the tenants’ breaches, identified in the inspection report, had remained unresolved for 17 days.

Had paragraph 4 of the Order correctly recorded that, “Ms Burney did an inspection around 11 November 2025 and reported to the landlord......” I cannot see the decision would have been different. The Order found that the property manager had addressed the issues with the tenants and told the landlord that, before the landlord issued the 14 day notice.

It is apparent that the landlord did not consider the property manager to have carried out her instructions but as far as the tenants are concerned, the landlord is bound by the actions of her agent. Other relevant evidence

This relates to a concern identified by the landlord that there was other evidence contradicting the evidence given by her plumber about the cause of a leak.

That evidence was discussed at the hearing so is not new. The landlord disagrees with her plumber, but as an appropriately qualified tradesperson selected by the landlord, his evidence about the work he undertook and his assessment of the cause of the leak, is persuasive evidence.

The landlord says that less compensation should have been awarded for the tenants not being able to use the shower, on the basis that they ought to have told her when the plumber had completed the repair work.

Having the shower repaired was the landlord’s responsibility. The award made was for the period between the date the landlord instructed the tenants not to use the shower and the date she said they could. Being notified when the work was done was between the landlord and her plumber.

The landlord challenges the award in the Order for failing to appoint an agent. She says the tenants were readily able to contact her. That is not new evidence and was considered at the hearing. Unauthorised alterations and concealment of damage

This relates to the landlord’s concern that she had explicitly denied permission for the tenants to replace the silicone in the shower.

Again this seems to be an issue between the landlord and the property manager Ms Burney who was identified in the agreement as manager for the tenancy and agent for the landlord. The tenants were entitled to deal with the property manager until informed by her that she was no longer managing the tenancy.

Whether the landlord had instructed Ms Burney to the contrary, the Order was made on the basis that: a. the property manager had authorised the tenants to replace the shower silicone before being advised by Ms Burney that she was not longer managing the tenancy; and b. the landlord’s plumber assessed the work as of good quality.

There is no new evidence that would likely change those findings. Harassment findings

The landlord says that the findings in the Order were inconsistent with the tenants having chosen to stay at the premises for another 3 months. The termination date was recorded in the Order so that was a known fact when the Order was made.

At this hearing the tenants repeated their position that they could not move out earlier because they were required to save for a bond before being able to do so.

The finding was not made because the landlord was not able to present her point of view at the hearing or unfair because important new evidence has come to light. Outcome

I acknowledge and apologise for the error in mis-recording the date of the November 2025 inspection.

The landlord is perfectly entitled to challenge the Tribunal’s findings through an appeal, but they were made following a full hearing. No significant new evidence has since been discovered.

I am not persuaded that the findings in the Order were due to the kinds of circumstances that might suggest a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.

The rehearing application is therefore declined.

Order