What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5066508?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5066508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11814531-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5066508?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5066508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11814531-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13A George Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066508 — Healthy homes

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. Mr Jago appeared on behalf of both tenants. Ms Hale and Ms Qi appeared for the landlord.

The parties filed cross claims following a fire at the tenancy.

On 7 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the tenants compensate the landlord for the insurance excess for fire damage and the filing fee. The Tribunal rejected the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.

The Tribunal dismissed the tenants’ application for compensation.

On 13 March 2025 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had failed to adequately address key evidence and arguments presented during the hearing, specifically regarding potential breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenants said that for a period following the fire (while the scope of repairs was being disputed by the tenants and before the landlord effected an intermediary repair) there was a large hole in the wall behind the stove that may have compromised the Healthy Homes Standards, specifically insulation, weather tightness and draught stopping.

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?

The tenants filed an application on 11 November 2024 seeking the following orders: a. Work orders for the landlord to effect a partial repair (rather than the full repair arranged by the landlord’s insurer); b. Compensation for a reduction or rent due to the lack of stove; and c. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s bullying behaviour.

At the hearing the tenants updated their claim to include compensation for having to buy additional food while they had no stove and for the stress of the ongoing situation.

When updating their claim the tenants did not expressly update their claim to include a compensation claim for failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards, but in written submissions addressed to the Tribunal, in referencing the post-fire repairs and delay, stated that: “They left the house with a large hole in the wall, exposing it to the outside, and rendering the property uninhabitable due to the lack of cooking facilities and failure to meet healthy homes standards.”

In the decision dated 7 March 2025 the Tribunal found that there had been no breach by the landlord of their obligations. It found instead that the tenants caused the fire and had taken an unreasonable approach to the landlord’s attempts to repair the property without delay.

The tenants are correct that the Tribunal did not specifically address and deal with the issue of Healthy Homes Standards in its decision.

Having found that that the landlord was attempting to repair the property, and that any delays were caused by the unreasonable approach being taken by the tenants, there was no possible basis on which the landlord could have been found to be in breach of their obligations to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

There has been no miscarriage of justice. The tenants’ application for a rehearing is dismissed.

The stay of proceedings granted on 18 March 2025 is lifted and the order dated 7 March 2025 may now be enforced.

Order

The tenants’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. Mr Jago appeared on behalf of both tenants. Ms Hale and Ms Qi appeared for the landlord.
The parties filed cross claims following a fire at the tenancy.
On 7 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the tenants compensate the landlord for the insurance excess for fire damage and the filing fee. The Tribunal rejected the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal dismissed the tenants’ application for compensation.
On 13 March 2025 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had failed to adequately address key evidence and arguments presented during the hearing, specifically regarding potential breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants said that for a period following the fire (while the scope of repairs was being disputed by the tenants and before the landlord effected an intermediary repair) there was a large hole in the wall behind the stove that may have compromised the Healthy Homes Standards, specifically insulation, weather tightness and draught stopping.
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?

The tenants filed an application on 11 November 2024 seeking the following orders: a. Work orders for the landlord to effect a partial repair (rather than the full repair arranged by the landlord’s insurer); b. Compensation for a reduction or rent due to the lack of stove; and c. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s bullying behaviour.
At the hearing the tenants updated their claim to include compensation for having to buy additional food while they had no stove and for the stress of the ongoing situation.
When updating their claim the tenants did not expressly update their claim to include a compensation claim for failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards, but in written submissions addressed to the Tribunal, in referencing the post-fire repairs and delay, stated that: “They left the house with a large hole in the wall, exposing it to the outside, and rendering the property uninhabitable due to the lack of cooking facilities and failure to meet healthy homes standards.”
In the decision dated 7 March 2025 the Tribunal found that there had been no breach by the landlord of their obligations. It found instead that the tenants caused the fire and had taken an unreasonable approach to the landlord’s attempts to repair the property without delay.
The tenants are correct that the Tribunal did not specifically address and deal with the issue of Healthy Homes Standards in its decision.
Having found that that the landlord was attempting to repair the property, and that any delays were caused by the unreasonable approach being taken by the tenants, there was no possible basis on which the landlord could have been found to be in breach of their obligations to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
There has been no miscarriage of justice. The tenants’ application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 18 March 2025 is lifted and the order dated 7 March 2025 may now be enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066508 — Healthy homes at 13A George Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066508 — Healthy homes at 13A George Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

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