What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4679310?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4679310?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Fence Line And Edges, Weed And Tidy…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $159.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.84 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $343.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $243.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679310?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10192709-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4679310?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4679310?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Fence Line And Edges, Weed And Tidy…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $159.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.84 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $343.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $243.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679310?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10192709-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4679310 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4679310 — net $267.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (July and August 2023	$243.44		Water rates: (July and August 2023
Cleaning: (professional exit clean	$500.00		Cleaning: (professional exit clean
Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen	$159.77		Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen
Rubbish removal	$343.85		Rubbish removal
Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod	$310.84		Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod
Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up	$724.50		Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up
fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard	$600.00		fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard
Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet		$900.00	Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet
cleaning		$2,000.00	cleaning
General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump		$250.00	General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump
Total award	$2,882.40	$3,150.00
Net award		$267.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$267.60

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 6 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order that Jade Property Management 2013 Limited must pay Christopher James Ashton $267.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Water rates: (July and August 2023)$243.44 Cleaning: (professional exit clean)$500.00 Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen light bulbs and one power point) $159.77 Rubbish removal $343.85 Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod))$310.84 Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard $724.50 Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet cleaning) $600.00 General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump leading to loss of amenity and inconvenience) $900.00 General damages: (failure to maintain bedroom window leading to loss of amenity and inconvenience) $2,000.00 Exemplary damages: (failure to provide HHS information) $250.00 Total award$2882.40$3,150.00 Net award $267.60 Bond (held in the name of Harry West) $3,660.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $267.60

On 12 February 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. It had important new information that was not available to it at the original hearing that would have an important influence on the matter of the pool pump, broken bedroom window glass, provision of healthy homes information; b. The amounts awarded far exceed any reasonable compensation warranted in the circumstances; and c. The landlord was unhappy with the decision/order and requested a rehearing to allow it to present additional evidence and arguments to support its position.

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. Neither of these grounds has been proven by the landlord in its rehearing application.

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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.

The landlord did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that it could not have obtained with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.

The evidence it provided today shows that it went out to get new evidence after the original order as it was unhappy with the decision/order. The new evidence consisted of text messages that would have been reasonably available to it at the original hearing if it had done its due diligence. It explained to me that it wanted to present these text messages at today’s consideration hearing to prove the “tenant lied”, that the findings of the Tribunal are wrong, that I was biased towards the tenant and unfairly and unreasonably believed his evidence over its and that had erred in the amounts I awarded against it. Further, the landlord claimed that it had no printer to print out its text and email evidence for the original hearing so was unable to present what it could not print. At no time during the original hearing did the landlord convey this to me, nor did it ask to present evidence from a personal device or ask to email it to the registry to be uploaded, emailed to or hard copies printed for all parties. These were options available to it that the tenant availed himself of during the hearing.

The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties at the original hearing, and the landlord has confirmed it was not happy with the Tribunal’s decision, so the Adjudicator could not have fully considered its evidence. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present and/or relitigate its case.

The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4679310 — net $267.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (July and August 2023	$243.44		Water rates: (July and August 2023
Cleaning: (professional exit clean	$500.00		Cleaning: (professional exit clean
Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen	$159.77		Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen
Rubbish removal	$343.85		Rubbish removal
Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod	$310.84		Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod
Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up	$724.50		Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up
fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard	$600.00		fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard
Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet		$900.00	Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet
cleaning		$2,000.00	cleaning
General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump		$250.00	General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump
Total award	$2,882.40	$3,150.00
Net award		$267.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$267.60

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 6 February 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 6 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order that Jade Property Management 2013 Limited must pay Christopher James Ashton $267.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Water rates: (July and August 2023)$243.44 Cleaning: (professional exit clean)$500.00 Light bulbs/batteries: (replace 10 LED and halogen light bulbs and one power point) $159.77 Rubbish removal $343.85 Repairs: (damaged front door lock and curtain rod))$310.84 Lawns and Garden work: (remove grass from up fence line and edges, weed and tidy yard $724.50 Carpet Cleaning: (stain removal and carpet cleaning) $600.00 General damages: (failure to maintain pool pump leading to loss of amenity and inconvenience) $900.00 General damages: (failure to maintain bedroom window leading to loss of amenity and inconvenience) $2,000.00 Exemplary damages: (failure to provide HHS information) $250.00 Total award$2882.40$3,150.00 Net award $267.60 Bond (held in the name of Harry West) $3,660.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $267.60
On 12 February 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. It had important new information that was not available to it at the original hearing that would have an important influence on the matter of the pool pump, broken bedroom window glass, provision of healthy homes information; b. The amounts awarded far exceed any reasonable compensation warranted in the circumstances; and c. The landlord was unhappy with the decision/order and requested a rehearing to allow it to present additional evidence and arguments to support its position.
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. Neither of these grounds has been proven by the landlord in its rehearing application.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The landlord did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that it could not have obtained with reasonable due diligence for the original hearing.
The evidence it provided today shows that it went out to get new evidence after the original order as it was unhappy with the decision/order. The new evidence consisted of text messages that would have been reasonably available to it at the original hearing if it had done its due diligence. It explained to me that it wanted to present these text messages at today’s consideration hearing to prove the “tenant lied”, that the findings of the Tribunal are wrong, that I was biased towards the tenant and unfairly and unreasonably believed his evidence over its and that had erred in the amounts I awarded against it. Further, the landlord claimed that it had no printer to print out its text and email evidence for the original hearing so was unable to present what it could not print. At no time during the original hearing did the landlord convey this to me, nor did it ask to present evidence from a personal device or ask to email it to the registry to be uploaded, emailed to or hard copies printed for all parties. These were options available to it that the tenant availed himself of during the hearing.
The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties at the original hearing, and the landlord has confirmed it was not happy with the Tribunal’s decision, so the Adjudicator could not have fully considered its evidence. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present and/or relitigate its case.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679310 — Cleanliness at 26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679310 — Cleanliness at 26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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