What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4471180?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4471180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4471180?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4471180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9592916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4471180?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4471180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4471180?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4471180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9592916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4471180 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted. The landlord must now comply with the order dated 18 August 2023.

Reasons

Mr Sagoo and Ms Kutia attended the in-person hearing on 26 October 2023.
On 18 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord must pay the tenants $1,360.44 divided as below: Drea Vanita Kutia$690.44 Jerome Smith$670.00
The Tribunal also made a declaration that the landlord had failed to complete the Healthy Homes Standards compliance statements in the tenancy agreement as required by section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The above order was made after a hearing on 20 July 2023 at which all three parties were present. The landlord and the tenants gave written and oral evidence.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing. His application said that the Adjudicator only heard the tenants’ side, and that the decision was biased.

Is there a good reason to grant a rehearing or to change the decision?

At the hearing on 26 October 2023, Mr Sagoo said that he did not agree with the decisions made on 18 August 2023.
He wanted to discuss these again. I explained that this hearing could not be used to go over the issues a second time. If that was allowed, then the Tribunal and Courts would not get through their work because everyone would want to have a second chance to explain their case.
I explained to Mr Sagoo that if he disagrees with a Tribunal decision or thinks it is wrong, he has the right to file an appeal to the District Court.
Mr Sagoo has provided new evidence from the Hamilton City Council which might show that the bathroom in the unit is exempt from the Healthy Homes Standards requirement to have a ventilation fan installed.
I accept that this evidence is relevant, but it is not enough to justify me granting a new hearing. This is because Mr Sagoo could have asked the council for this evidence before the last hearing. It was reasonably possible for him to do that. The Tribunal cannot grant a rehearing to give someone a second chance to gather the evidence they could have organised at the first hearing.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed. The bond refund from the Bond Centre
The landlord says that he should be able to keep the bond money because the Bond Centre paid it to him.
The Bond Centre did this because the landlord applied for the bond before the tenants had made their application to the Tribunal.
The tenants did not know that the landlord had applied to the Bond Centre because the Bond Centre did not have up-to-date contact details for the tenants. The tenants did not have a chance to tell the Bond Centre that they disagreed.
I cannot make an order requiring the landlord to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre because the Bond Centre has already refunded it and did follow its process (by sending a letter to the tenants at the tenancy address which was the only address it had).
I encourage the landlord and tenants to always include email addresses on the bond lodgement form. The order of 18 August 2023
The decision dated 18 August 2023 stands.
I made that decision after considering all relevant issues including that:- a. JS (tenant) owed $938.57 rent in lieu of notice, b. The landlord did not fully complete all the compliance statements in the tenancy agreement. There were five breaches and each is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can fine a landlord up to $750.00; s13A(1F) RTA, c. The tenants proved that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy which is a breach and an unlawful act; s45(1)(a) RTA.
I decided that since the landlord had breached the RTA, it was fair that the tenants get the bond money they had paid back. The Tribunal can balance issues and make decisions based on overall fairness; see s85 RTA.
The stay of proceedings is lifted, and the landlord must now comply with the order dated 18 August 2023.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted. The landlord must now comply with the order dated 18 August 2023.

Reasons

Mr Sagoo and Ms Kutia attended the in-person hearing on 26 October 2023.
On 18 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord must pay the tenants $1,360.44 divided as below: Drea Vanita Kutia$690.44 Jerome Smith$670.00
The Tribunal also made a declaration that the landlord had failed to complete the Healthy Homes Standards compliance statements in the tenancy agreement as required by section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The above order was made after a hearing on 20 July 2023 at which all three parties were present. The landlord and the tenants gave written and oral evidence.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing. His application said that the Adjudicator only heard the tenants’ side, and that the decision was biased.

Is there a good reason to grant a rehearing or to change the decision?

At the hearing on 26 October 2023, Mr Sagoo said that he did not agree with the decisions made on 18 August 2023.
He wanted to discuss these again. I explained that this hearing could not be used to go over the issues a second time. If that was allowed, then the Tribunal and Courts would not get through their work because everyone would want to have a second chance to explain their case.
I explained to Mr Sagoo that if he disagrees with a Tribunal decision or thinks it is wrong, he has the right to file an appeal to the District Court.
Mr Sagoo has provided new evidence from the Hamilton City Council which might show that the bathroom in the unit is exempt from the Healthy Homes Standards requirement to have a ventilation fan installed.
I accept that this evidence is relevant, but it is not enough to justify me granting a new hearing. This is because Mr Sagoo could have asked the council for this evidence before the last hearing. It was reasonably possible for him to do that. The Tribunal cannot grant a rehearing to give someone a second chance to gather the evidence they could have organised at the first hearing.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed. The bond refund from the Bond Centre
The landlord says that he should be able to keep the bond money because the Bond Centre paid it to him.
The Bond Centre did this because the landlord applied for the bond before the tenants had made their application to the Tribunal.
The tenants did not know that the landlord had applied to the Bond Centre because the Bond Centre did not have up-to-date contact details for the tenants. The tenants did not have a chance to tell the Bond Centre that they disagreed.
I cannot make an order requiring the landlord to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre because the Bond Centre has already refunded it and did follow its process (by sending a letter to the tenants at the tenancy address which was the only address it had).
I encourage the landlord and tenants to always include email addresses on the bond lodgement form. The order of 18 August 2023
The decision dated 18 August 2023 stands.
I made that decision after considering all relevant issues including that:- a. JS (tenant) owed $938.57 rent in lieu of notice, b. The landlord did not fully complete all the compliance statements in the tenancy agreement. There were five breaches and each is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can fine a landlord up to $750.00; s13A(1F) RTA, c. The tenants proved that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy which is a breach and an unlawful act; s45(1)(a) RTA.
I decided that since the landlord had breached the RTA, it was fair that the tenants get the bond money they had paid back. The Tribunal can balance issues and make decisions based on overall fairness; see s85 RTA.
The stay of proceedings is lifted, and the landlord must now comply with the order dated 18 August 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4471180 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4471180 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a good reason to grant a rehearing or to change the decision?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a good reason to grant a rehearing or to change the decision?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions