What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612043?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4612043?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612043?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587696-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612043?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4612043?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612043?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587696-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612043 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
By consent, the tenant must deposit a $300.00 “pet bond” to Bond Services before 23 December 2023 by way of topping up the existing bond

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with her mother.
Luke Zhang attended the hearing for the landlord. Ms Eli Wu attended as a Mandarin interpreter.
On 7 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order declaring the tenant’s dog was exempt from the tenancy agreement’s purported “no pets” term.
The landlord applies for a rehearing of the decision.
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?

Mr Zhang submits that although the dog in question has done no damage to the premises, its presence was still a clear breach of the prohibitive term. He says the tenant should have applied for permission to have a dog before actually accepting one into the premises.
The Tribunal considered these matters at the last hearing.
Mr Zhang also says that if the tenant had notified the landlord of her wish, the landlord may well have agreed, but required the tenant to pay more rent, presumably to account for additional wear and tear to the premises and the possibility of additional cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy.
The possibility of a higher rent was not discussed at the last hearing, but there is no evidence that the dog has done any damage to the premises to justify a higher rent or compensation.
This matter was not before the Tribunal at the last hearing, but I do not see that any miscarriage or wrong arises from it. It could be the subject of a separate claim by the landlord, but as mentioned it is not clear that the dog has caused any damage justifying compensation.
Mr Zhang is concerned that if nothing else, the dog’s presence will result in a lingering odour that may or may not be removed by carpet cleaning. He says he has experienced cases where new tenants are repulsed by the lingering odour of pets.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If the premises are left reasonably clean there should be no rank odour. It is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure that does not happen.
Having heard from Mr Zhang, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal’s decision about the dog involved a substantial wrong or that a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur
The application for rehearing is dismissed. “Pet bond”
As noted in the Tribunal’s last decision, landlords cannot demand a “pet bond”. However, I see no reason the Tribunal cannot.
I suggested that I could make and order for this.
A pet bond would provide the landlord with some comfort that the tenant will fulfil their clean and tidy obligations including in respect to anything the dog has done that render the premises less than reasonably clean.
The parties consented to an order for a pet bond, so I make an order to that effect.
The landlord owes the tenant in excess of $4,500.00. She could pay the landlord out of that amount once it is paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612043 — Cleanliness at 20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612043 — Cleanliness at 20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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