What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4883032?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4883032?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883032?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11490948-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4883032?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4883032?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883032?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11490948-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Glencourt Place, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4883032 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
Ms Pei was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter at the hearing on 5 December 2024. No interpreter was arranged for today’s phone hearing to consider Ms Pei’s application for re-hearing. Ms Pei was offered the opportunity to seek an adjournment of today’s hearing so that the Ministry of Justice could arrange a Mandarin interpreter, however, Ms Pei declined and confirmed (twice) that she wished to proceed today without an interpreter.
On 13 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenant a total of $4,890.00 in compensation and exemplary damages.
On 20 December 2024, Ms Pei applied for a rehearing on the grounds that new evidence was available in relation to the servicing of the premises’ ranchslider doors and new evidence to show there was a key for all ranchslider doors. Ms Pei also raised other matters which she said had been overlooked or misunderstood by the adjudicator, including that the upstairs ranchslider opened onto a deck which was high above the ground and therefore it was not a point of entry to the premises, and that the video evidence produced by the tenant at the hearing was not served on her prior to the hearing.
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”.
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, Ms Pei has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. New evidence – maintenance of doors and windows
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced an email dated 20 December 2024 from “Anytime Windows.” In the email, an employee states Anytime Aluminium Windows and Doors Services Ltd carried out works on the windows and doors of the premises in 2012 and that at that time, all the windows and doors were in good working order.
The tenant’s tenancy commenced on 16 December 2017. Evidence that the doors were serviced in 2012 would not have impacted my findings that the doors were not lockable during the tenancy. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate that the “new” evidence was not available at the hearing held on 5 December 2024. When asked why they did not produce the evidence then, Ms Pei stated today, “we didn’t realise.”
I am not satisfied the “new” evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. I also note that, even if it had been produced, it does not prove the state of the doors and/or windows during the tenancy. New evidence – key for all ranchslider doors
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced a photograph taken by Mr Li on 24 January 2025 which showed a key in a ranchslider lock. Ms Pei stated the photo was taken in the dining room. Ms Pei says it is new evidence to show a lock was in place that would operate all the ranchsliders in the premises, which is counter to the tenants’ evidence that the ranchsliders could not be locked, and pieces of wood were used in the tracks of the ranchsliders to keep them from being opened from the outside.
As with the evidence of maintenance, Ms Pei was unable to say why this evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. A re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case. Furthermore, evidence that a lock was in place in January 2025 is not evidence of whether a lock was in place during the tenancy. Upstairs ranchslider opens to upper deck
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced a photograph of the exterior of the premises. Ms Pei says the photo shows the upstairs ranchslider opened onto an exterior deck on the second storey which does not have access down to the ground level. Ms Pei says the tenants claimed the door was external when in fact it is not.
The upstairs ranchslider is clearly external. It opens to the outside, which in this case was to a deck. I accept there is no access from the deck directly to the ground. That is not a matter on which I made a determination.
As recorded at paragraph 38 of the original decision, I noted that the upstairs bedroom had a ranchslider that opened to a small deck. That is consistent with the photograph now produced. The evidence which the landlord now seeks to produce has no bearing on the issues determined. Tenant’s video evidence not served on landlord
Ms Pei submits the tenant’s video evidence showing that the ranchsliders could not be locked was not served on her prior to the hearing, and therefore she was not given an opportunity to watch it prior to the hearing.
It is correct that the tenant did not serve copies of the videos until the day of the hearing. The tenant states they were instructed by Tenancy Services to bring copies of the videos on USB sticks to the hearing.
While all parties are entitled to be served with all evidence prior to a hearing, the tenant’s failure to do so in this matter did not result in any material prejudice to the landlord. That is because the tenant’s claims that the ranchslider doors were not lockable were set out in the tenant’s application form filed on 2 June 2024 and were further described in written submissions filed by the tenants on 10 November 2024. The written submissions referred to the tenants’ intention to produce video evidence at the hearing. The video evidence produced at the hearing was consistent with the written material filed and claims made by the tenants. Other matters
Ms Pei also raised other matters during the hearing to consider whether to grant a re-hearing. The other matters raised included attempts by the landlord to re- argue their case and/or to raise new claims. As explained during the hearing today, a re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case and my focus must be on the matters before me at the original hearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
Ms Pei was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter at the hearing on 5 December 2024. No interpreter was arranged for today’s phone hearing to consider Ms Pei’s application for re-hearing. Ms Pei was offered the opportunity to seek an adjournment of today’s hearing so that the Ministry of Justice could arrange a Mandarin interpreter, however, Ms Pei declined and confirmed (twice) that she wished to proceed today without an interpreter.
On 13 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenant a total of $4,890.00 in compensation and exemplary damages.
On 20 December 2024, Ms Pei applied for a rehearing on the grounds that new evidence was available in relation to the servicing of the premises’ ranchslider doors and new evidence to show there was a key for all ranchslider doors. Ms Pei also raised other matters which she said had been overlooked or misunderstood by the adjudicator, including that the upstairs ranchslider opened onto a deck which was high above the ground and therefore it was not a point of entry to the premises, and that the video evidence produced by the tenant at the hearing was not served on her prior to the hearing.
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”.
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, Ms Pei has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. New evidence – maintenance of doors and windows
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced an email dated 20 December 2024 from “Anytime Windows.” In the email, an employee states Anytime Aluminium Windows and Doors Services Ltd carried out works on the windows and doors of the premises in 2012 and that at that time, all the windows and doors were in good working order.
The tenant’s tenancy commenced on 16 December 2017. Evidence that the doors were serviced in 2012 would not have impacted my findings that the doors were not lockable during the tenancy. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate that the “new” evidence was not available at the hearing held on 5 December 2024. When asked why they did not produce the evidence then, Ms Pei stated today, “we didn’t realise.”
I am not satisfied the “new” evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. I also note that, even if it had been produced, it does not prove the state of the doors and/or windows during the tenancy. New evidence – key for all ranchslider doors
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced a photograph taken by Mr Li on 24 January 2025 which showed a key in a ranchslider lock. Ms Pei stated the photo was taken in the dining room. Ms Pei says it is new evidence to show a lock was in place that would operate all the ranchsliders in the premises, which is counter to the tenants’ evidence that the ranchsliders could not be locked, and pieces of wood were used in the tracks of the ranchsliders to keep them from being opened from the outside.
As with the evidence of maintenance, Ms Pei was unable to say why this evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. A re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case. Furthermore, evidence that a lock was in place in January 2025 is not evidence of whether a lock was in place during the tenancy. Upstairs ranchslider opens to upper deck
In support of the application for re-hearing, Ms Pei produced a photograph of the exterior of the premises. Ms Pei says the photo shows the upstairs ranchslider opened onto an exterior deck on the second storey which does not have access down to the ground level. Ms Pei says the tenants claimed the door was external when in fact it is not.
The upstairs ranchslider is clearly external. It opens to the outside, which in this case was to a deck. I accept there is no access from the deck directly to the ground. That is not a matter on which I made a determination.
As recorded at paragraph 38 of the original decision, I noted that the upstairs bedroom had a ranchslider that opened to a small deck. That is consistent with the photograph now produced. The evidence which the landlord now seeks to produce has no bearing on the issues determined. Tenant’s video evidence not served on landlord
Ms Pei submits the tenant’s video evidence showing that the ranchsliders could not be locked was not served on her prior to the hearing, and therefore she was not given an opportunity to watch it prior to the hearing.
It is correct that the tenant did not serve copies of the videos until the day of the hearing. The tenant states they were instructed by Tenancy Services to bring copies of the videos on USB sticks to the hearing.
While all parties are entitled to be served with all evidence prior to a hearing, the tenant’s failure to do so in this matter did not result in any material prejudice to the landlord. That is because the tenant’s claims that the ranchslider doors were not lockable were set out in the tenant’s application form filed on 2 June 2024 and were further described in written submissions filed by the tenants on 10 November 2024. The written submissions referred to the tenants’ intention to produce video evidence at the hearing. The video evidence produced at the hearing was consistent with the written material filed and claims made by the tenants. Other matters
Ms Pei also raised other matters during the hearing to consider whether to grant a re-hearing. The other matters raised included attempts by the landlord to re- argue their case and/or to raise new claims. As explained during the hearing today, a re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case and my focus must be on the matters before me at the original hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883032 — Exemplary damages at 3 Glencourt Place, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883032 — Exemplary damages at 3 Glencourt Place, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions