What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097868?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5097868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097868?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769030-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097868?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5097868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097868?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769030-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 8, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097868 — Healthy homes

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by video conference on 30 April 2025.

On 10 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord application 5152072 was withdrawn at the landlord request as it relates to a different room number and ordering that Room Renter Limited must pay Sylvain Joel Emmanuel Izart $677.00 being rent credit refund, compensation for breach of Healthy Homes Ventilation Standard and reimbursement of filing fee.

On or about 10 April 2025 Sylvain Izart applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had further evidence he had been unable to present at the previous hearing.

Mr Izart stated today that he wished to ensure that the Tribunal understood that when he rented Room 8 he did not know it was not lawfully Healthy Homes compliant. He stated that he did not think that he had clearly conveyed this at the previous hearing and the Tribunal may have thought that he knew it was unlawful when he rented it. Mr Izart also stated that he disagreed with the amount of compensation ordered and sought more.

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 Sylvain Izart has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a)The Tribunal order dated 10 April 2025 found that the landlord had breached the Healthy Homes Ventilation requirement in respect of Room 8. This finding was not based on whether or not the tenant knew of the breach at the beginning of the tenancy but based on the finding that the tenant had proved on the balance of probabilities that the room was not compliant. (b)I accept that the tenant did not know the room was non compliant at the beginning of the tenancy but find that this would not have affected the outcome. (c)While the tenant claim partly concerns the further evidence referred to, the core issue is that the tenant disagrees with the amount of compensation ordered. However, that is not a process defect and therefore is not a matter for a rehearing. If the Tribunal is wrong in its decision that is a matter for an appeal.

For the reasons outlined above the tenant has not proved that there has or may have been or is likely to be a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there are no grounds for a rehearing under section 105. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed and the order dated 10 April 2025 stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal order dated 10 April 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by video conference on 30 April 2025.
On 10 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord application 5152072 was withdrawn at the landlord request as it relates to a different room number and ordering that Room Renter Limited must pay Sylvain Joel Emmanuel Izart $677.00 being rent credit refund, compensation for breach of Healthy Homes Ventilation Standard and reimbursement of filing fee.
On or about 10 April 2025 Sylvain Izart applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had further evidence he had been unable to present at the previous hearing.
Mr Izart stated today that he wished to ensure that the Tribunal understood that when he rented Room 8 he did not know it was not lawfully Healthy Homes compliant. He stated that he did not think that he had clearly conveyed this at the previous hearing and the Tribunal may have thought that he knew it was unlawful when he rented it. Mr Izart also stated that he disagreed with the amount of compensation ordered and sought more.
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 Sylvain Izart has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a)The Tribunal order dated 10 April 2025 found that the landlord had breached the Healthy Homes Ventilation requirement in respect of Room 8. This finding was not based on whether or not the tenant knew of the breach at the beginning of the tenancy but based on the finding that the tenant had proved on the balance of probabilities that the room was not compliant. (b)I accept that the tenant did not know the room was non compliant at the beginning of the tenancy but find that this would not have affected the outcome. (c)While the tenant claim partly concerns the further evidence referred to, the core issue is that the tenant disagrees with the amount of compensation ordered. However, that is not a process defect and therefore is not a matter for a rehearing. If the Tribunal is wrong in its decision that is a matter for an appeal.
For the reasons outlined above the tenant has not proved that there has or may have been or is likely to be a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there are no grounds for a rehearing under section 105. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed and the order dated 10 April 2025 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097868 — Healthy homes at Room 8, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097868 — Healthy homes at Room 8, 180 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

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