What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4463103?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4463103?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4463103?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4463103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845766-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4463103?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4463103?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4463103?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4463103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845766-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4463103 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the tenants’ application for a rehearing on 16 January 2024.

On 11 October 2023 the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation relating to a ranch slider door. The Tribunal declined to hold that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent for an alteration or addition relating to the internal wiring.

On 18 October 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had not fully assessed the inconvenience caused to the tenant by not being able to live normally at the premises.

The tenant says he was unable to utilise the living room at all during the tenancy, due to the issues identified above. The landlord says the tenant was able to use the living room for watching movies on a large projector screen and had gym- equipment in the living room.

Section 105(1) of the 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”.

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 – “something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown”, see Wellington City Council v McMillan (DC Wellington, 7 June 2002, MA 70/02 & TT 97/02, Judge Tuohy) at paragraph 19.

The District Court has also confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...”, see Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The Tribunal addressed the issue of compensation at paragraphs 8 and 15 of the 11 October 2023 order.

The Tribunal’s understanding of the inconvenience or loss of amenity caused by delay in repairs to the ranch slider was set out in the Order. I cannot see a statement by the tenant in the voluminous Tribunal file to the effect that he could not use the living room at all.

The tenant had permission to install a projector and a screen together with loudspeakers in the lounge. There are photographs in the file showing some of these items and an exercise bike in the living room.

The parties have different views about who is at fault and what justice requires, but the Tribunal has carefully considered their claims at several substantive hearings (the applications were filed before the tenancy ended, in December 2022).

The fact that the parties would have reached a different conclusion to the Tribunal, based on the evidence, does not provide grounds for a rehearing. The appropriate course when the merits of a decision are challenged is an appeal.

For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there are grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the tenants’ application for a rehearing on 16 January 2024.
On 11 October 2023 the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenant for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation relating to a ranch slider door. The Tribunal declined to hold that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent for an alteration or addition relating to the internal wiring.
On 18 October 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had not fully assessed the inconvenience caused to the tenant by not being able to live normally at the premises.
The tenant says he was unable to utilise the living room at all during the tenancy, due to the issues identified above. The landlord says the tenant was able to use the living room for watching movies on a large projector screen and had gym- equipment in the living room.
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
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 – “something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown”, see Wellington City Council v McMillan (DC Wellington, 7 June 2002, MA 70/02 & TT 97/02, Judge Tuohy) at paragraph 19.
The District Court has also confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...”, see Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The Tribunal addressed the issue of compensation at paragraphs 8 and 15 of the 11 October 2023 order.
The Tribunal’s understanding of the inconvenience or loss of amenity caused by delay in repairs to the ranch slider was set out in the Order. I cannot see a statement by the tenant in the voluminous Tribunal file to the effect that he could not use the living room at all.
The tenant had permission to install a projector and a screen together with loudspeakers in the lounge. There are photographs in the file showing some of these items and an exercise bike in the living room.
The parties have different views about who is at fault and what justice requires, but the Tribunal has carefully considered their claims at several substantive hearings (the applications were filed before the tenancy ended, in December 2022).
The fact that the parties would have reached a different conclusion to the Tribunal, based on the evidence, does not provide grounds for a rehearing. The appropriate course when the merits of a decision are challenged is an appeal.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there are grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4463103 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4463103 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions