What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657418?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4657418?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657418?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10387516-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657418?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4657418?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657418?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10387516-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63A Omana Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4657418 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone today.
On 11 April 2024 the Tribunal made orders refunding the bond to the landlord and awarding compensation.
On 17 April 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of a proceeding 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, and 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 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...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506).
In the rehearing application, the tenant seemed to be saying that he was not provided with documents handed up by the landlord at the hearing on 27 March 2024 (which the tenant attended by telephone). They were emailed to both parties by the Registrar immediately following the hearing. The tenant provided further submissions by email on 4 April 2024. The tenant’s email was a reply to the email from the Registrar and was part of the same email “string”. Although the landlord was given until 8 April 2024 for a final right of reply, nothing was received and so the Tribunal issued its order.
The tenant’s submission at the hearing today was that the landlord had not provided any information as directed by the Tribunal. This misunderstands the directions. The tenant was given an opportunity to comment on documents presented by the landlord in person at the hearing and did so. The landlord had a right of reply. He also had a right not to exercise it. So far as the Tribunal is aware, the tenant was provided with all the documents relied on by the landlord and had the opportunity to comment on them. I cannot see that there has been a procedural error.
The tenant says the amounts awarded were too high. He was particularly critical of the award for cladding repairs ($517.00). He said this would cost $50.00 at most based on his experience as a handyman. He criticised the lack of invoices from a registered person (i.e., for tax purposes) and said he wanted to see proof that the landlord had paid the amounts claimed.
In my view, the landlord does not have to prove actual payment. The landlord must show loss, which can take the form of physical damage to his property. It was open to the tenant to challenge the repair costs claimed, which he did in his submissions, but without providing any opposing cost estimates. I accepted the quotation from an independent building company for the purpose of establishing the likely cost of repairs. The company included a GST number on its quotation. I also note that I reduced or disallowed several claims which I considered excessive.
I acknowledge that the tenant is very unhappy with the decision and says he will appeal. However, the points he raises are not about procedural errors but about whether the decision was correct. This does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
For these reasons, I must find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone today.
On 11 April 2024 the Tribunal made orders refunding the bond to the landlord and awarding compensation.
On 17 April 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of a proceeding 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, and 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 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...” (Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506).
In the rehearing application, the tenant seemed to be saying that he was not provided with documents handed up by the landlord at the hearing on 27 March 2024 (which the tenant attended by telephone). They were emailed to both parties by the Registrar immediately following the hearing. The tenant provided further submissions by email on 4 April 2024. The tenant’s email was a reply to the email from the Registrar and was part of the same email “string”. Although the landlord was given until 8 April 2024 for a final right of reply, nothing was received and so the Tribunal issued its order.
The tenant’s submission at the hearing today was that the landlord had not provided any information as directed by the Tribunal. This misunderstands the directions. The tenant was given an opportunity to comment on documents presented by the landlord in person at the hearing and did so. The landlord had a right of reply. He also had a right not to exercise it. So far as the Tribunal is aware, the tenant was provided with all the documents relied on by the landlord and had the opportunity to comment on them. I cannot see that there has been a procedural error.
The tenant says the amounts awarded were too high. He was particularly critical of the award for cladding repairs ($517.00). He said this would cost $50.00 at most based on his experience as a handyman. He criticised the lack of invoices from a registered person (i.e., for tax purposes) and said he wanted to see proof that the landlord had paid the amounts claimed.
In my view, the landlord does not have to prove actual payment. The landlord must show loss, which can take the form of physical damage to his property. It was open to the tenant to challenge the repair costs claimed, which he did in his submissions, but without providing any opposing cost estimates. I accepted the quotation from an independent building company for the purpose of establishing the likely cost of repairs. The company included a GST number on its quotation. I also note that I reduced or disallowed several claims which I considered excessive.
I acknowledge that the tenant is very unhappy with the decision and says he will appeal. However, the points he raises are not about procedural errors but about whether the decision was correct. This does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
For these reasons, I must find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657418 — Tenancy dispute at 63A Omana Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657418 — Tenancy dispute at 63A Omana Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions