What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4566649?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4566649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4566649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4566649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599394-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4566649?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4566649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4566649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4566649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9599394-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4566649 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The landlords attended. Ms Johns attended for the tenants.

On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent abatement and exemplary damages to the tenant and rent arrears to the landlords.

On 2 October 2023 the landlords applied for a rehearing on various grounds which are discussed below.

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. Discussion and Decision

This application has been filed two and a half months after the decision. It should have been filed within five working days of the decision. I can give permission for an application to be filed out of time, but there would have to be very good reasons to do so in this case.

I wrongly referred to the tenants as first-time renters. That was not relevant to my decision and so it cannot be a ground for a rehearing.

The landlords point out that the bathroom in question is more like an ensuite and there is another main bathroom in the premises. As well, I accept that I was looking at a photograph of the adjoining bedroom when I found that the bathroom was unusable due to a hole on the wall and mould on the framing.

But that would not affect my decision. If it was the bedroom that was unusable due to the hole and mould, it is unlikely that the decision would have been different or significantly different.

He tenants also point out that the shower was unusable and therefore possibly the abatement should have been more because both rooms were affected. That point has come force. This is not a reason for a rehearing.

The landlords questioned the method I used for calculating the rent abatement. I am satisfied that my method basing it on the rent payable for the relevant period was correct. But even if it wasn’t, that is not a ground for a rehearing. That would require an appeal.

The landlords disputed the finding that they left property in the garage that was not for use by the tenants. That too would be a point for appeal. In any case it was not a very significant part of the award and would not justify a rehearing.

Given the, at best weak, grounds relied on, there is no justification for extending the time for filing the rehearing application. Even if I were to have extended the time, the grounds are not sufficient for a rehearing and the application is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The landlords attended. Ms Johns attended for the tenants.

On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent abatement and exemplary damages to the tenant and rent arrears to the landlords.

On 2 October 2023 the landlords applied for a rehearing on various grounds which are discussed below.

I wrongly referred to the tenants as first-time renters. That was not relevant to my decision and so it cannot be a ground for a rehearing.

But that would not affect my decision. If it was the bedroom that was unusable due to the hole and mould, it is unlikely that the decision would have been different or significantly different.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4566649 — Rent arrears at Unit 5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4566649 — Rent arrears at Unit 5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions