What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672391?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4672391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672391?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10004169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672391?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4672391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672391?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10004169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Melrose Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672391 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 18 December 2023 the Tribunal made an order by consent.
On 18 December 2023 the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Landlord did not present all of the evidence in support of his claims, and that she now has new evidence to present which she did not have at the hearing.
The Tenant also says she did not receive compensation for the work that she did at the property.
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.
In this case, a decision reached by consent, the Tenant would need to show why her consent was not freely given; that she was under some pressure or duress to give her agreement.
Conduct (a deliberate stratagem or tactic) on the part of one party which may disadvantage another, causing procedural unfairness, could also justify a rehearing.
The Landlord brought evidence to the hearing and provided three copies. The Landlord did not have all the photographs I asked for.
The Tenant sought $250.00 for green waste removal in her application, but raised new claims at the hearing itself, and new and further claims at the rehearing consideration hearing also. The Tenant did not have all of the photographs I asked for.
I noted there were some issues with both of the parties claims and both had indicated they could get the evidence (photographs) I asked for but would need more time to do so.
Both discussed and agreed on a compromise, a full and final agreement settling their dispute, which I recorded in a binding Tribunal Order (dated 18 December 2023).
I did not detect the Tenant was under any duress or that she did not give her consent freely. I went through the breakdown of the Order, to confirm her agreement. If I had detected any reluctance on her part, I would not have actioned the parties’ joint request.
At the time, I indicated I could adjourn the matter. Neither particularly wanted to come back for another hearing and engaged each other directly.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. I am not convinced a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.
I adjourned the hearing at 10:30am and reconvened at 12:30pm, directing the Landlord to share any evidence previously unseen by the Tenant, which was complied with. This step was taken to address the Tenant’s doubts about the compromise agreement, clarifying that this action was separate from my decision on whether to grant a rehearing but aimed to provide the Tenant with an opportunity to reassess her rehearing application.
Upon resuming, the Tenant confirmed her desire to proceed with the rehearing, stating the absence of oven photographs from the Landlord, as she had anticipated. Despite this, I referenced the Property Manager’s testimony from the initial hearing regarding the oven’s cleanliness, noting that the agreement for the Landlord to receive compensation – which notionally included some payment towards oven cleaning expenses – likely did not result in any injustice to the Tenant concerning her obligation to leave the oven in a reasonably clean and tidy state.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672391 — Cleanliness at 20 Melrose Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672391 — Cleanliness at 20 Melrose Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

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