What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4846751?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is granted only in respect of amendment of the

How much money was awarded in case 4846751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731753-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4846751?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is granted only in respect of amendment of the

How much money was awarded in case 4846751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731753-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 41 The Boulevard, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4846751 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is granted only in respect of amendment of the landlord’s name.
The name Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited is amended to Barfoot & Thompson Limited by consent.
This order is to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal order of the same case number dated 20 June 2024.
In all other respects the order dated 20 June 2024 stands.
The application for rehearing of the substantive application is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay compensation to the tenant totalling $5820.44 for failure to repair and maintain, invalid notice to terminate and reimbursement of filing fee.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds summarised as follows: -that the findings of the Tribunal are not supported by the facts and evidence presented, -the award of compensation for failure to maintain was not appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances, -the Tribunal’s decision that the notice to terminate was invalid is disputed -the tenant’s claim was motivated by a decision to decline her application to rent the neighbouring premises -the landlord is seeking name suppression -the correct name for the agent should be Barfoot & Thompson Limited not Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited.
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”.
Section 105(5) states that the Tribunal may grant an application for a rehearing under this section on such terms as it thinks fit.
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 the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg. a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I will consider the landlord grounds for rehearing: Landlord name
There was a discrepancy between the landlord name on the Tenancy Agreement and the landlord name on the tenant’s application.
Both parties consented to the amendment to the name of Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited to be corrected to Barfoot & Thompson Limited.
This is a matter of procedure and I find there could be a miscarriage of justice if the order needs to be enforced and there is an error in the name.
Accordingly, a rehearing is granted on such terms only to correct the name of Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited to Barfoot & Thompson Limited. The findings of the Tribunal are not supported by the facts and evidence presented and the award of compensation for failure to maintain was not appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances,
The landlord referred to the evidence presented at the hearing on 19 June 2024 and stated that the Tribunal had failed to take in to account that the fence was fixed and the drainage and flooding issues were caused by a severe weather event and failed to take in to account Christmas holidays when considering the time to repair the toilet cistern.
The Tribunal order dated 20 June 2024 notes at paragraph 19 that the tenant claim in respect of the fence is not proved and paragraph 26 that the drainage claim is not proved by the tenant.
In respect of the toilet cistern the Tribunal order at paragraphs 28 and 29 considers the Christmas period but finds that this was an urgent plumbing matter and was not addressed in a reasonable time frame.
The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties and made findings regarding maintenance at the premises and assessed compensation based on these findings.
The landlord did not present any further evidence today that was not reasonably available at the hearing on 19 June 2024. The Tribunal’s decision that the notice to terminate was invalid is disputed.
Both parties capably presented their submissions and evidence at the hearing on 19 June 2024, and this was considered, and a finding made by the Tribunal. The landlord has not presented any further evidence today that was not reasonably available at the hearing on 19 June 2024. The tenant’s claim was motivated by a decision to decline her application to rent the neighbouring premises.
This is not a ground for a rehearing. Both landlords and tenants are entitled to bring claims to the Tenancy Tribunal. It is not unusual that claims are brought when there has been a dispute between the parties.
The Tribunal must determine claims on a case-by-case basis by applying the law in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to the evidence presented. The landlord is seeking name suppression.
The Tribunal must on the application of the successful party, grant name suppression. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was no application made for suppression by either party at the hearing on 20 June 2024, therefore, the Tribunal was not required to consider this. The order has already been published.
The tenant was the successful party and stated today that she does not seek name suppression. Conclusion
The landlord has not shown that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, that they were not able to properly present their case or that there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing that could have affected the outcome.
For the above reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing of the substantive application:
Therefore, a rehearing is granted on such terms only to correct the name of Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as dealt with in this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846751 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 1, 41 The Boulevard, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846751 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 1, 41 The Boulevard, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

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