How much money was awarded in case 4379560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4379560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4379560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9923259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4379560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4379560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4379560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9923259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

47 Kautami Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4379560 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4379560 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details and the name and identifying details of the property management company.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.
The order dated 13 February 2023 is amended to correct the name of the landlord, but otherwise remains unchanged. That order is now enforceable against Landmart Limited.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 13 February 2023 the Tribunal made an order for work orders and compensation in favour of the tenant.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they did not think the property manager acting for them at the time had represented their interests appropriately, and opposing the tenant’s application.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.
The application was heard in person and the landlord was represented at all stages of the process by a property manager. That property manager appeared at the hearing and made submissions to the Tribunal.
The landlord’s argument is that there was additional material that he would have liked presented, and which he considers impacts the decision made by the Tribunal.
That material – which is largely in the form of emails – was material available at the time of the original hearing. No explanation for the failure to provide the material at the time of the hearing was provided.
The landlord was entitled to appear at the hearing, and to give evidence, if he wished. He appears to have chosen not to avail himself of this opportunity.
The matter was fully argued at the original hearings and all relevant evidence presented to the Tribunal was considered.
There was no procedural error. The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. The landlord has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing.
The landlord criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. Cases are decided on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence.
Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers that an Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision.
A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what the landlord is seeking. He is not entitled to a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed. Change of landlord name
At the re-hearing, Counsel for the property manager advised that the original decision was issued in the name of the property manager not the landlord for whom that manager was agent.
That was an error in the original decision and the decision is amended accordingly.
The original order, including the work order, compensation order and the rent reductions ordered remain in force and are enforceable against Landmart Limited.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details and the name and identifying details of the property management company.

The application for re-hearing is dismissed.

The order dated 13 February 2023 is amended to correct the name of the landlord, but otherwise remains unchanged. That order is now enforceable against Landmart Limited.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 13 February 2023 the Tribunal made an order for work orders and compensation in favour of the tenant.

On 15 February 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they did not think the property manager acting for them at the time had represented their interests appropriately, and opposing the tenant’s application.

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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.

The application was heard in person and the landlord was represented at all stages of the process by a property manager. That property manager appeared at the hearing and made submissions to the Tribunal.

The landlord’s argument is that there was additional material that he would have liked presented, and which he considers impacts the decision made by the Tribunal.

That material – which is largely in the form of emails – was material available at the time of the original hearing. No explanation for the failure to provide the material at the time of the hearing was provided.

The landlord was entitled to appear at the hearing, and to give evidence, if he wished. He appears to have chosen not to avail himself of this opportunity.

The matter was fully argued at the original hearings and all relevant evidence presented to the Tribunal was considered.

There was no procedural error. The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. The landlord has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing.

The landlord criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. Cases are decided on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence.

Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers that an Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision.

A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what the landlord is seeking. He is not entitled to a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.

I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed. Change of landlord name

At the re-hearing, Counsel for the property manager advised that the original decision was issued in the name of the property manager not the landlord for whom that manager was agent.

That was an error in the original decision and the decision is amended accordingly.

The original order, including the work order, compensation order and the rent reductions ordered remain in force and are enforceable against Landmart Limited.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4379560 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Kautami Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4379560 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Kautami Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions