What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4345667 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4345667?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4345667?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4345667?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8223707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4345667 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4345667?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4345667?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4345667?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8223707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4345667 — Harassment

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
No stay of proceedings is granted. For clarity, the tenancy ends at midnight on Wednesday 5 October 2022 in accordance with Tribunal Order dated 24 August 2022.
Suppression of the Tenant and Landlords’ names and identifying details is granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference. [The landlord/s] and the agent [The agent/s] represented the landlord.
On 24 August 2022 the Tribunal made an order by agreement of the parties (a consent order) for the tenancy to terminate at midnight on 5 October 2022; the landlord to pay the tenant $229.00 by way of rent reduction; and this to be in full and final settlement of all of the tenant’s claims.
On 19 September 2022, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that can be summarised as follows: a. The landlords have continued to harass the tenant since the consent order was reached, in particular by an incident on the driveway on 6 September 2022. She says the consent order allows the landlord to do this so it would be unjust to allow it to stand. b. The tenant was not well, and was in a dysphoric state due to her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) triggered by being in a courtroom setting. So the adjudicator should not have allowed the hearing to proceed. c. The adjudicator was not impartial and did not see and hear all the evidence.
On 23 September 2022 the tenant filed another application for rehearing along with an application for a stay of proceedings. The grounds remained the same, but the tenant gave additional detail of her inability to represent herself on the day of the hearing; the landlord’s harassment towards her; and the adjudicator’s failures.
The landlord has paid the tenant $229.00 in accordance with the consent order. Relevant law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 application for rehearing must be filed with the Tribunal within 5 working days of the date of the decision or within such further time as the Tribunal may allow. See section 105(2) RTA.
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.

Should the out of time rehearing application be allowed?

The tenant’s application for a rehearing had to be filed by 31 August 2022 so was 19 days late.
On balance, in the interests of justice, I allowed the application to proceed.
A stay was not granted. Instead the tenant was given the opportunity to provide medical evidence in support of her application by the end of the day on Monday 3 October 2022 with the stay application being determined at the hearing on 4 October 2022.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Adjudicator’s lack of impartiality and failure to hear all the evidence: The tenant did not pursue my alleged lack of impartiality at the hearing. In any event, I did not make any findings of fact or law because the parties reached their own agreement to settle the claims.
Landlord’s continued harassment: Both parties described their version of events since the last hearing. They are in direct conflict as to what occurred. Both say it has caused them significant stress in their lives. As noted at the hearing, this is not a ground for a rehearing because it is essentially a new claim involving conduct and events after the 24 August hearing. This would require a new application to be filed by the tenant with the Tribunal.
The tenant says this continued harassment shows an ongoing pattern of behaviour that needs to be heard with the first claim. This in itself does not justify a rehearing of the first claim.
Tenant’s mental inability to represent herself: This is the main ground of the tenant’s application. She says her several health conditions along with her dysphoric state meant that the hearing should not have proceeded; she was not mentally able to answer questions or present herself in an accurate way that day. She says she had an unexpected PTSD episode and does not remember entire chunks of the day. She has now provided three letters from her GP doctor, her psychologist, and her counsellor to support her application.
The counsellor and psychologist do not express any view on the tenant’s ability to represent herself or provide how the PTSD conditions might manifest itself in her conduct in a Court hearing room. The GP doctor makes assertions about the tenant’s behaviour at the hearing but this is merely repeating what she has been told by the tenant. The GP doctor was not present at the hearing and did not conduct an examination that day and is not a specialist in mental health. So these statements serve only to confirm two conditions from which the tenant suffers: PTSD and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
I am satisfied from my own recollection of the hearing that the tenant had a fair opportunity to represent herself. She communicated openly. She did not at any time express to the Tribunal that she was unable to proceed due to her mental health or request the hearing not proceed. The parties had approximately 10 to 15 minutes outside the court room before they confirmed the agreement with the Tribunal during which time the tenant took a phone call.
I also note that the tenant has had the PTSD condition since childhood (as per her GP doctor’s letter). With a longstanding condition she should have been aware that she was coming to a courthouse and prepared herself for it such as by having a support person or using breathing techniques. At the 4 October teleconference hearing the tenant suggested these tools might be used in any future courtroom hearing.
The tenant’s delay in filing the rehearing application, nearly 4 weeks after the order was made, reinforces the tenant is now wanting to have a second chance at the claim.
For all the reasons above I am not satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice and a rehearing is not granted.
A stay of proceedings of the 24 August consent order is not granted so the tenancy ends on the agreed date of 5 October 2022. The tenant says she was moving out that day anyway and confirmed she was of sound mind when stating that.
This may place the tenant in a difficult position because there is no ability to file a late appeal - see the High Court decisions of: Fuimaono v Housing New Zealand Ltd (2000) 15 PRNZ 115; McLeod v Schellack [2019] NZHC 1364. However it is open to both parties to file an application with the Tribunal for any claims relating to tenancy matters after the date of the consent order on 24 August 2022.

Should a suppression order be made?

Because of the medical information disclosed, it is appropriate the names and identifying details of both parties be suppressed. The public interest in publication is outweighed by the need for privacy. See section 95A RTA.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
No stay of proceedings is granted. For clarity, the tenancy ends at midnight on Wednesday 5 October 2022 in accordance with Tribunal Order dated 24 August 2022.
Suppression of the Tenant and Landlords’ names and identifying details is granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference. [The landlord/s] and the agent [The agent/s] represented the landlord.
On 24 August 2022 the Tribunal made an order by agreement of the parties (a consent order) for the tenancy to terminate at midnight on 5 October 2022; the landlord to pay the tenant $229.00 by way of rent reduction; and this to be in full and final settlement of all of the tenant’s claims.
On 19 September 2022, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that can be summarised as follows: a. The landlords have continued to harass the tenant since the consent order was reached, in particular by an incident on the driveway on 6 September 2022. She says the consent order allows the landlord to do this so it would be unjust to allow it to stand. b. The tenant was not well, and was in a dysphoric state due to her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) triggered by being in a courtroom setting. So the adjudicator should not have allowed the hearing to proceed. c. The adjudicator was not impartial and did not see and hear all the evidence.
On 23 September 2022 the tenant filed another application for rehearing along with an application for a stay of proceedings. The grounds remained the same, but the tenant gave additional detail of her inability to represent herself on the day of the hearing; the landlord’s harassment towards her; and the adjudicator’s failures.
The landlord has paid the tenant $229.00 in accordance with the consent order. Relevant law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 application for rehearing must be filed with the Tribunal within 5 working days of the date of the decision or within such further time as the Tribunal may allow. See section 105(2) RTA.
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.

Should the out of time rehearing application be allowed?

The tenant’s application for a rehearing had to be filed by 31 August 2022 so was 19 days late.
On balance, in the interests of justice, I allowed the application to proceed.
A stay was not granted. Instead the tenant was given the opportunity to provide medical evidence in support of her application by the end of the day on Monday 3 October 2022 with the stay application being determined at the hearing on 4 October 2022.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Adjudicator’s lack of impartiality and failure to hear all the evidence: The tenant did not pursue my alleged lack of impartiality at the hearing. In any event, I did not make any findings of fact or law because the parties reached their own agreement to settle the claims.
Landlord’s continued harassment: Both parties described their version of events since the last hearing. They are in direct conflict as to what occurred. Both say it has caused them significant stress in their lives. As noted at the hearing, this is not a ground for a rehearing because it is essentially a new claim involving conduct and events after the 24 August hearing. This would require a new application to be filed by the tenant with the Tribunal.
The tenant says this continued harassment shows an ongoing pattern of behaviour that needs to be heard with the first claim. This in itself does not justify a rehearing of the first claim.
Tenant’s mental inability to represent herself: This is the main ground of the tenant’s application. She says her several health conditions along with her dysphoric state meant that the hearing should not have proceeded; she was not mentally able to answer questions or present herself in an accurate way that day. She says she had an unexpected PTSD episode and does not remember entire chunks of the day. She has now provided three letters from her GP doctor, her psychologist, and her counsellor to support her application.
The counsellor and psychologist do not express any view on the tenant’s ability to represent herself or provide how the PTSD conditions might manifest itself in her conduct in a Court hearing room. The GP doctor makes assertions about the tenant’s behaviour at the hearing but this is merely repeating what she has been told by the tenant. The GP doctor was not present at the hearing and did not conduct an examination that day and is not a specialist in mental health. So these statements serve only to confirm two conditions from which the tenant suffers: PTSD and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
I am satisfied from my own recollection of the hearing that the tenant had a fair opportunity to represent herself. She communicated openly. She did not at any time express to the Tribunal that she was unable to proceed due to her mental health or request the hearing not proceed. The parties had approximately 10 to 15 minutes outside the court room before they confirmed the agreement with the Tribunal during which time the tenant took a phone call.
I also note that the tenant has had the PTSD condition since childhood (as per her GP doctor’s letter). With a longstanding condition she should have been aware that she was coming to a courthouse and prepared herself for it such as by having a support person or using breathing techniques. At the 4 October teleconference hearing the tenant suggested these tools might be used in any future courtroom hearing.
The tenant’s delay in filing the rehearing application, nearly 4 weeks after the order was made, reinforces the tenant is now wanting to have a second chance at the claim.
For all the reasons above I am not satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice and a rehearing is not granted.
A stay of proceedings of the 24 August consent order is not granted so the tenancy ends on the agreed date of 5 October 2022. The tenant says she was moving out that day anyway and confirmed she was of sound mind when stating that.
This may place the tenant in a difficult position because there is no ability to file a late appeal - see the High Court decisions of: Fuimaono v Housing New Zealand Ltd (2000) 15 PRNZ 115; McLeod v Schellack [2019] NZHC 1364. However it is open to both parties to file an application with the Tribunal for any claims relating to tenancy matters after the date of the consent order on 24 August 2022.

Should a suppression order be made?

Because of the medical information disclosed, it is appropriate the names and identifying details of both parties be suppressed. The public interest in publication is outweighed by the need for privacy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4345667 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4345667 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the out of time rehearing application be allowed?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the out of time rehearing application be allowed?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions