What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772397?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4772397?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772397?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772397?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4772397?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772397?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

84B Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4772397 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing. Ms McGregor attended for the landlord.

On 1 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation to be paid by the tenant to the landlord in the amount of $1,092.80. The amount was to be paid from the bond.

On 5 March 2024, Reece Dillon applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not feel his evidence in relation to the carpet stains was taken into account in the decision and he considered that name suppression was improperly denied.

During the rehearing-hearing Mr Dillon added additional grounds including that he considered that the adjudicator was factually incorrect in relation to the lease break fees, he identified that the other party had introduced information outside of the five day time period requested by the Tenancy Tribunal and, he felt bullied, in the initial hearing, into withdrawing his claim in relation to the heat pump being slightly under the Healthy Homes requirements.

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 Mr Dillon has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Mr Dillon’s grounds in relation to the carpet stains and break fees, stem from his disagreement with the decision of the Adjudicator. It is stated in the notes attached to each order that “[a] rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision”.

In terms of the other party providing information outside of the requested timeframes, Mr Dillon said that if he had known (before the hearing) that the claim for the carpet was limited to the insurance excess this may have influenced his decision to proceed with the hearing.

The Tribunal asks that information be provided in a timely way so as to avoid delays and unnecessary adjournments. This also gives the adjudicator time to review material before hearings.

The information provided reduced Mr Dillon’s liability, in terms of the carpet claim, to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess and the ability to accept the landlord’s claim for this reduced amount was available to Mr Dillon in the hearing.

It is unfortunate that Mr Dillon felt bullied at the hearing in relation to the heating claim. I do not consider that this was the intention of any other participant.

In terms of the heating requirements of the healthy homes standards, the heat pump was found to be slightly short of requirements although the assessment report relied on by the landlord stated that it complied.

After the hearing the Adjudicator realised that Mr Dillon was correct in his calculation that the heat pump output was 87.63% of the standard rather than 90% so, in fairness to the tenant, the matter was addressed in the order even though the claim had been withdrawn by the tenant at the hearing.

Mr Dillon said he should have been successful in his application for suppression. As this would have required the Adjudicator to come to a different conclusion, it too, is a consequence of the fact that Mr Dillon disagrees with the decision.

I find that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been identified by the tenant so the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing. Ms McGregor attended for the landlord.

On 1 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation to be paid by the tenant to the landlord in the amount of $1,092.80. The amount was to be paid from the bond.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Dillon has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The Tribunal asks that information be provided in a timely way so as to avoid delays and unnecessary adjournments. This also gives the adjudicator time to review material before hearings.

It is unfortunate that Mr Dillon felt bullied at the hearing in relation to the heating claim. I do not consider that this was the intention of any other participant.

I find that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been identified by the tenant so the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772397 — Healthy homes at 84B Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772397 — Healthy homes at 84B Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

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