What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4544049?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544049?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9635318-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4544049?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544049?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9635318-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 14 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544049 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 22 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order awarding $899.50 to the landlord and $1,040.50 to the tenants. These amounts were refunded from the bond to the parties.
On 25 August 2023, Mr Puri applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: “It seems that a miscarriage of justice occurred here as the final order was made without sufficient understanding and the provisions of RTA 49A(1)(2) and 49B(8) were not taken into consideration. Further points were neglected. A comparison needs two sides in order to be valid, and this has occurred in this case due to the decision was made as neglect of considering relevant evidences. The point number is 15b, in which information was withheld from another party, accordingly to the email communication (a copy was provided at hearing stage). The work area was clearly stated. Further claims were made where the information was not shared with us at any time. With the exception of Carpet cleaning charges, all other claims do not have any basis that can be correlated to the sections mentioned in the order. These need to be detailed or taken into account further.
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?

For the following reasons Mr Puri has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: • The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. • I approached the original hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal. • Mr Puri criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. It should also be noted that an Adjudicator has no obligation to refer to each and every aspect of the evidence presented (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere CIV2011-090-56, 27 April 2011). Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers the Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision. • The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Mr Puri has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing. • Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to make a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 22 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order awarding $899.50 to the landlord and $1,040.50 to the tenants. These amounts were refunded from the bond to the parties.
On 25 August 2023, Mr Puri applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: “It seems that a miscarriage of justice occurred here as the final order was made without sufficient understanding and the provisions of RTA 49A(1)(2) and 49B(8) were not taken into consideration. Further points were neglected. A comparison needs two sides in order to be valid, and this has occurred in this case due to the decision was made as neglect of considering relevant evidences. The point number is 15b, in which information was withheld from another party, accordingly to the email communication (a copy was provided at hearing stage). The work area was clearly stated. Further claims were made where the information was not shared with us at any time. With the exception of Carpet cleaning charges, all other claims do not have any basis that can be correlated to the sections mentioned in the order. These need to be detailed or taken into account further.
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?

For the following reasons Mr Puri has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: • The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. • I approached the original hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal. • Mr Puri criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. It should also be noted that an Adjudicator has no obligation to refer to each and every aspect of the evidence presented (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere CIV2011-090-56, 27 April 2011). Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers the Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision. • The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Mr Puri has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing. • Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to make a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544049 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544049 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions