What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4714989?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4714989?

Chattels: Heater: $31.91 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing As At 10.11.23: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Glazing: $1,281.71 awarded to landlord; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $371.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714989?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4714989?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4714989?

Chattels: Heater: $31.91 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing As At 10.11.23: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Glazing: $1,281.71 awarded to landlord; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $371.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714989?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

95 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4714989 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4714989 — net $3,005.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owing as at 10.11.23	$2,400.00	Rent owing as at 10.11.23
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$371.51	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Glazing	$1,281.71	Repairs: Glazing
Repairs: Wall	$200.00	Repairs: Wall
chattels: heater	$31.91	chattels: heater
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,005.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,005.57

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Telephone calls to each of the tenants went straight to voicemail.

On 22 March 2023, the Tribunal made orders as follows: a. Ian Hunt and Shontel Manu must pay Weihua Chen $3,005.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. b. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3111199-012) to Weihua Chen immediately. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent owing as at 10.11.23 Lawns and Garden work $2400.00 $200.00 Rubbish removal$371.51 Repairs: Glazing$1,281.71 Repairs: Wall$200.00 chattels: heater Cleaning: $31.91 $100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,605.57 Bond$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,005.57

The landlord has applied for a rehearing because he disagrees with the amounts ordered for cleaning, repairs to the wall and consequential losses as a result of the fixed term tenancy coming to an end prematurely.

In his application for a rehearing, he states:

I provide the invoice of wall repairment which was $345, however the adjudicator only gave me $200 which she thought the price was unreasonable. Why should I burden the loss $145 becuase [sic] of tenant's fault? The adjudicator can call the supplier and confirm the price.

Regarding the cleaning cost, the adjudicator said there was no enough detail to determ [sic] how much for the cleaning. I can provide more pictures to approve that took my neighbour's one day's work which doesn't make sense only cost $100. Moreover, the adjudicator has pointed out at reason 13 from the order "There was a lot of rubbish and unwanted belongings left behind."

For the re-renant [sic] cost, there was still 3 months till the end of fixed tenancy. I just claimed the reasonal [sic] price which include paying to deal with police and the time he spent on the house because [sic] the teants [sic] only broke the fixed tenancy but also damaged the house. Otherwise the tenant should pay one week's rent $400 to cover the cost of re-tenant which indicates very clearly from teancy [sic] agreement we both parties signed.

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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a) His grounds of challenge to the prior order are that he disagrees with the findings of the Tribunal on 22 March 2024 and now wants to reargue his claims. b) He has submitted further evidence but even if that reason would have made a difference to the outcome, has not identified any reason why that evidence was not available at the prior hearing (which had been adjourned from December 2024). c) There was no natural justice concern or evidence of any miscarriage of justice, as explained above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4714989 — net $3,005.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owing as at 10.11.23	$2,400.00	Rent owing as at 10.11.23
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$371.51	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Glazing	$1,281.71	Repairs: Glazing
Repairs: Wall	$200.00	Repairs: Wall
chattels: heater	$31.91	chattels: heater
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,005.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,005.57

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Telephone calls to each of the tenants went straight to voicemail.
On 22 March 2023, the Tribunal made orders as follows: a. Ian Hunt and Shontel Manu must pay Weihua Chen $3,005.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. b. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3111199-012) to Weihua Chen immediately. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent owing as at 10.11.23 Lawns and Garden work $2400.00 $200.00 Rubbish removal$371.51 Repairs: Glazing$1,281.71 Repairs: Wall$200.00 chattels: heater Cleaning: $31.91 $100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,605.57 Bond$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,005.57
The landlord has applied for a rehearing because he disagrees with the amounts ordered for cleaning, repairs to the wall and consequential losses as a result of the fixed term tenancy coming to an end prematurely.
In his application for a rehearing, he states:
I provide the invoice of wall repairment which was $345, however the adjudicator only gave me $200 which she thought the price was unreasonable. Why should I burden the loss $145 becuase [sic] of tenant's fault? The adjudicator can call the supplier and confirm the price.
Regarding the cleaning cost, the adjudicator said there was no enough detail to determ [sic] how much for the cleaning. I can provide more pictures to approve that took my neighbour's one day's work which doesn't make sense only cost $100. Moreover, the adjudicator has pointed out at reason 13 from the order "There was a lot of rubbish and unwanted belongings left behind."
For the re-renant [sic] cost, there was still 3 months till the end of fixed tenancy. I just claimed the reasonal [sic] price which include paying to deal with police and the time he spent on the house because [sic] the teants [sic] only broke the fixed tenancy but also damaged the house. Otherwise the tenant should pay one week's rent $400 to cover the cost of re-tenant which indicates very clearly from teancy [sic] agreement we both parties signed.
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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a) His grounds of challenge to the prior order are that he disagrees with the findings of the Tribunal on 22 March 2024 and now wants to reargue his claims. b) He has submitted further evidence but even if that reason would have made a difference to the outcome, has not identified any reason why that evidence was not available at the prior hearing (which had been adjourned from December 2024). c) There was no natural justice concern or evidence of any miscarriage of justice, as explained above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714989 — Property damage at 95 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714989 — Property damage at 95 Talbot Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

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

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

Frequently asked questions