What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710949?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4710949?

Compensation: (failure to maintain-s…: $9,150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710949?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10270584-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710949?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4710949?

Compensation: (failure to maintain-s…: $9,150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710949?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10270584-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710949 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710949 — net $13,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (failure to maintain-s45	$9,150.00	(failure to maintain-s45
Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain	$4,800.00	(failure to maintain
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$13,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$13,970.44

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.
[The respondent] has agreed to pay the $13,970.44 awarded to [the tenants] on 30 April 2024 (“the debt”) by one lump sum payment on 24 June 2024.
If [the Landlord/owner] fails to pay the debt on the due date, the full amount of the debt will fall due immediately and the tenants will be able to commence enforcement proceedings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 30 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: DescriptionLandlordTenant Compensation: (failure to maintain-s45) $9,150.00 Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain) $4,800.00 Filing fee$20.44 Total award$13,970.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $13,970.44
On 3 May 2024, [the Landlord/owner], the owner of the property has sought a second rehearing of the tenants’ application on the following grounds: a. As owner of the property, he says has completed the necessary maintenance on the rental premises within a reasonable timeframe; b. He wants an opportunity to present his case as he considers that his representative/agent did not convey his side of the story, including the steps he says he has taken to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c. He wants an opportunity to present additional documents that he says were not presented to the Tribunal by his representative/agent, which he says will prove the tenants’ claims are not based on fact; and d. He wants the opportunity to have the 30 April 2024 Order set aside and to have a new hearing where he can present a better case than the one presented by his representative/agent. 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 given the opportunity by the Tribunal to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence, that was not reasonably available to that party at the first hearing if that party had undertaken reasonable diligence to obtain all relevant evidence to the matter. In addition, any new evidence that was not reasonably available to the party if they had undertaken reasonable diligence to discover such documents, those documents must also contain information that could have affected the outcome. None of these grounds have been proven by the landlord/owner in the second 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 a better case or to re-litigate the case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord/owner 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/owner did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that his property manager/agent could not have obtained with reasonable diligence for the second hearing on 30 April 2024.
The evidence the landlord/owner provided today shows there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord/owner and his property managers/agents and that it was the property management company’s alleged negligence that led to the property management company not presenting all the information/evidence that would have been available to it if it had better communicated with the landlord/owner. The landlord/owner went out to get new evidence after the 30 April 2024 order to show he has done everything to address the tenants issues but also confirms he ha no idea what the property management company’s communication has been with the tenants in relation to the maintenance issues they have complained of.
The landlord/owner should have been made aware of the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages on 12 October 2023. He should have also received the original 1 March 2024 Order from his property management company/agents. That Order would have made him aware that a rehearing had been granted, reiterated to him what the tenants had claimed, given him an indication of the amounts awarded that the property management company had been given an opportunity to defend at another hearing and that the property management company needed all information available to assist it to present its best case to the Tribunal. On the evidence presented to the Tribunal today, it appears that the property management company did not keep the landlord informed of the Tribunal proceedings nor did it give him the opportunity to participate in the hearings. It is not a procedural fault of the Tribunal that there has been a breakdown in communication between the landlord/owner and his chosen agents. That communication breakdown does not justify the granting of a rehearing.
The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties at the 30 April 2024 hearing and made amendments from its 1 March 2024 Order accordingly. The landlord/owner has confirmed he was not happy with the Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order and decision and that he has information that proves the tenants claims have no merit. He also confirmed he is unhappy with his property managers/agent’s performance during the tenancy and during the 30 April 2024 hearing.
A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision or unhappy with his property managers/agent’s performance at a hearing, to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or to relitigate his case. All the information the landlord/owner has provided to the Tribunal in support of his rehearing application was in existence and readily available with reasonable diligence to the property management company with reasonable diligence. Apart from the evident communication breakdown between the landlord/owner and Oaks Property Management Ltd, all the information the landlord submitted in support of his rehearing application was available but not provided to the Tribunal by his agents.
The landlord/owner has failed to provide new evidence that justifies the granting of a second rehearing and has also failed to prove that there was any procedural error that would justify a second rehearing. As such, the landlord/owner’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.
During the hearing, the landlord/owner of the property has indicated he is not in a financial position to repay the debt immediately as ordered. The landlord/owner wants to avoid being subject to enforcement proceedings and incurring the additional time and cost for both parties of going through enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, the parties have agreed that the landlord/owner will repay the debt to the tenants in one lump sum on 24 June 2024. I have made further orders to reflect that agreement between the parties. Name Suppression
The tenants, being the wholly successful party are entitled to name suppression and made an application for suppression on the application form submitted to the Tribunal.
The landlord/owner made an application during the hearing for his and his partner’s name and identifying details to be suppressed. The landlord/owner has indicated he intends to make a professional negligence claim against Oaks Property Management Ltd, as he alleges the property management company he engaged to manage the property has failed to use the standard of care reasonably expected of skilled members of the property management profession and that its professional negligence has caused him and the tenants loss, damage or injury for which the landlord/owner intends to seek a remedy.
As such, the landlord/owner requested name suppression as he alleges it was the property management’s negligence that led to the Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 award against him and that he was in no way responsible for the failure to maintain the property that led to that award.
I am satisfied that there are grounds to order the landlord/owners of the property name suppression in all the circumstances.
The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the landlord/owner’s name could have significant repercussions for the landlord/owner in the future. I therefore grant the landlord/owner suppression of their names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710949 — net $13,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (failure to maintain-s45	$9,150.00	(failure to maintain-s45
Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain	$4,800.00	(failure to maintain
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$13,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$13,970.44

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.
[The respondent] has agreed to pay the $13,970.44 awarded to [the tenants] on 30 April 2024 (“the debt”) by one lump sum payment on 24 June 2024.
If [the Landlord/owner] fails to pay the debt on the due date, the full amount of the debt will fall due immediately and the tenants will be able to commence enforcement proceedings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 30 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: DescriptionLandlordTenant Compensation: (failure to maintain-s45) $9,150.00 Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain) $4,800.00 Filing fee$20.44 Total award$13,970.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $13,970.44
On 3 May 2024, [the Landlord/owner], the owner of the property has sought a second rehearing of the tenants’ application on the following grounds: a. As owner of the property, he says has completed the necessary maintenance on the rental premises within a reasonable timeframe; b. He wants an opportunity to present his case as he considers that his representative/agent did not convey his side of the story, including the steps he says he has taken to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c. He wants an opportunity to present additional documents that he says were not presented to the Tribunal by his representative/agent, which he says will prove the tenants’ claims are not based on fact; and d. He wants the opportunity to have the 30 April 2024 Order set aside and to have a new hearing where he can present a better case than the one presented by his representative/agent. 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 given the opportunity by the Tribunal to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence, that was not reasonably available to that party at the first hearing if that party had undertaken reasonable diligence to obtain all relevant evidence to the matter. In addition, any new evidence that was not reasonably available to the party if they had undertaken reasonable diligence to discover such documents, those documents must also contain information that could have affected the outcome. None of these grounds have been proven by the landlord/owner in the second 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 a better case or to re-litigate the case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord/owner 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/owner did not present any important new evidence at today’s hearing that his property manager/agent could not have obtained with reasonable diligence for the second hearing on 30 April 2024.
The evidence the landlord/owner provided today shows there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord/owner and his property managers/agents and that it was the property management company’s alleged negligence that led to the property management company not presenting all the information/evidence that would have been available to it if it had better communicated with the landlord/owner. The landlord/owner went out to get new evidence after the 30 April 2024 order to show he has done everything to address the tenants issues but also confirms he ha no idea what the property management company’s communication has been with the tenants in relation to the maintenance issues they have complained of.
The landlord/owner should have been made aware of the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages on 12 October 2023. He should have also received the original 1 March 2024 Order from his property management company/agents. That Order would have made him aware that a rehearing had been granted, reiterated to him what the tenants had claimed, given him an indication of the amounts awarded that the property management company had been given an opportunity to defend at another hearing and that the property management company needed all information available to assist it to present its best case to the Tribunal. On the evidence presented to the Tribunal today, it appears that the property management company did not keep the landlord informed of the Tribunal proceedings nor did it give him the opportunity to participate in the hearings. It is not a procedural fault of the Tribunal that there has been a breakdown in communication between the landlord/owner and his chosen agents. That communication breakdown does not justify the granting of a rehearing.
The Tribunal confirms it considered all evidence submitted by both parties at the 30 April 2024 hearing and made amendments from its 1 March 2024 Order accordingly. The landlord/owner has confirmed he was not happy with the Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order and decision and that he has information that proves the tenants claims have no merit. He also confirmed he is unhappy with his property managers/agent’s performance during the tenancy and during the 30 April 2024 hearing.
A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision or unhappy with his property managers/agent’s performance at a hearing, to have a second opportunity to present a better case and/or to relitigate his case. All the information the landlord/owner has provided to the Tribunal in support of his rehearing application was in existence and readily available with reasonable diligence to the property management company with reasonable diligence. Apart from the evident communication breakdown between the landlord/owner and Oaks Property Management Ltd, all the information the landlord submitted in support of his rehearing application was available but not provided to the Tribunal by his agents.
The landlord/owner has failed to provide new evidence that justifies the granting of a second rehearing and has also failed to prove that there was any procedural error that would justify a second rehearing. As such, the landlord/owner’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 Order stands and is enforceable.
During the hearing, the landlord/owner of the property has indicated he is not in a financial position to repay the debt immediately as ordered. The landlord/owner wants to avoid being subject to enforcement proceedings and incurring the additional time and cost for both parties of going through enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, the parties have agreed that the landlord/owner will repay the debt to the tenants in one lump sum on 24 June 2024. I have made further orders to reflect that agreement between the parties. Name Suppression
The tenants, being the wholly successful party are entitled to name suppression and made an application for suppression on the application form submitted to the Tribunal.
The landlord/owner made an application during the hearing for his and his partner’s name and identifying details to be suppressed. The landlord/owner has indicated he intends to make a professional negligence claim against Oaks Property Management Ltd, as he alleges the property management company he engaged to manage the property has failed to use the standard of care reasonably expected of skilled members of the property management profession and that its professional negligence has caused him and the tenants loss, damage or injury for which the landlord/owner intends to seek a remedy.
As such, the landlord/owner requested name suppression as he alleges it was the property management’s negligence that led to the Tribunal’s 30 April 2024 award against him and that he was in no way responsible for the failure to maintain the property that led to that award.
I am satisfied that there are grounds to order the landlord/owners of the property name suppression in all the circumstances.
The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the landlord/owner’s name could have significant repercussions for the landlord/owner in the future. I therefore grant the landlord/owner suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710949 — State of repair in Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710949 — State of repair in Papatoetoe, Auckland

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