What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4389343 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4389343?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4389343?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4389343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8833425-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4389343 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4389343?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4389343?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4389343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8833425-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4389343 — Leaks

Order

The application by the tenant for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The property manager/s] attended on behalf of the landlord. She is the property manager and sole director and shareholder of the property management company, [The property management company].
On 16 December 2022 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay the tenant $200.00 for compensation arising from the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment resulting from the renovation works carried out at a neighbouring property. The tenants remaining claims were all dismissed.
On 21 December 2022, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenant felt ambushed by the change of date of the hearing; b. The tenant did not receive the landlord’s evidence until the day of the hearing; c. The tenant felt that the adjudicator did not listen to her claims and hardly viewed the video footage; d. The tenant felt wearing her hijab might have been a downfall; and e. The landlord’s evidence was not true and incorrect.
During the hearing, the tenant indicated that she had new evidence that would have affected the outcome of the decision, so a further ground was added for consideration.
In response the landlord did not want a rehearing but believed the tenant did not like the outcome.
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 usually 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 reasons set out below the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Change of hearing date
The tenant claims that she felt ambushed by the change in hearing date.
The tenant submitted their application on 29 August 2022 and the hearing was scheduled for 7 December 2022. The property manager applied for an adjournment because they had prior arrangements in [redacted] on the hearing date. This was approved and both parties were notified on 23 November 2022 that the hearing was brought forward to 30 November 2022. The first hearing was to be at the [Event location suppressed], and then it was changed and held in the [Event location suppressed].
The tenant had almost three months to prepare for the hearing. I do not consider the bringing forward of the date by one week to be an issue. The tenant did not request an adjournment at any time prior to the hearing or during the hearing.
The [Event location suppressed] and [Event location suppressed] are [redacted] kms away from one another, so I do not consider this to be a substantial issue. The tenant did not request an adjournment at any time prior to the hearing or during the hearing on this basis.
The tenant also claimed that her witness, a previous tenant of the premises, was unable to attend. Following further discussion during the hearing the tenant explained that her witness was unable to attend the hearing due to a burglary the day prior to the hearing. It was not due to the change of the hearing date.
When asked why the tenant did not request an adjournment on the day of the hearing, she stated that she did not think that there would be a need to. A rehearing is not a chance for a party to have a second opportunity to present their case because they were unhappy with the way in which they presented their case (e.g., their decision not to request an adjournment so that a witness could appear) or to give them a second opportunity to present their case. Furthermore, the tenant provided a letter from the same witness in their original application, so the evidence from the witness was considered in the original application in any event. Evidence on day of hearing:
The tenant claims that they did not have time to go through and rebut the landlord’s evidence submitted on the day of the hearing.
I am satisfied that the tenant suffered no disadvantage or unfairness in not being provided with the landlord’s evidence prior to the hearing. Parties routinely provide their evidence to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing. The property manager arrived with three copies of her evidence in accordance with the rules set out on the Notice of Hearing sent to the parties by Tenancy Services. The tenant was a party to the majority of the correspondence submitted by the landlord and therefore she cannot have been taken unawares. Furthermore, the tenant did not request an adjournment at any time to consider the evidence. As already set out above the rehearing process is not an opportunity for the tenant to better present their case. Adjudicator did not listen to the tenant’s claims or view the video footage
The tenant claimed that the adjudicator did not listen to her and walked away when the video footage was being presented.
In relation to the video footage, my recollection is that the tenant arrived with approximately 20 videos on a USB disc. The videos were not named or identifiable. The tenant was asked to state if there were any specific videos that she would like to focus on and was unable to isolate the relevant portions of the videos that she wished to share.
Despite the disorganised nature of the video footage, approximately five videos were played at random, and the tenant described what was happening in each video.
I consider that there was nothing wrong with the Tribunal’s process and this is not grounds for a rehearing. I am satisfied that the outcome would not have been affected even if I had viewed all the videos at the time of the original hearing.
During the hearing, a significant amount of time was spent listening to the tenant’s claims and attempting to decipher what the tenant’s claims were as the material referred to several matters across several years. I consider a fair amount of time was given to both parties to present their evidence with the tenant being first offered the opportunity to present their claims and the property manager then offered an opportunity to respond. The tenant repeatedly asked for an opportunity to rebut the property manager’s evidence which was often disruptive but allowed. Wearing hijab was a disadvantage
The tenant claimed that she was ignored and not listened to during the hearing and that it “could have been because she wore a hijab”.
There was no evidence provided by the tenant in the hearing supporting this claim. I was careful to conduct the hearing in a fair and balanced way. I took time to explain the hearing process and allowed both parties to be heard.
There was no animosity between the tenant and myself during the hearing. There is no pecuniary or personal interest. As set out above the hearing followed the usual pattern. The decision was made after a consideration of the law and the facts. The reasons show the evidence presented was considered and the relevant arguments heard.
Making a finding in favour of one party, and not the other, is not a ground that would indicate to a fair-minded observer that the Tribunal did not approach the evidence with an open-mind. Evidence partially not true / partially incorrect
The tenant claims that the property manager’s evidence was “partially not true”. When asked to identify some examples of this the tenant referred to the follows: a. The tenant was hurt that the property manager had accused the tenant of being spiteful and lying. b. The tenant was unhappy with the fact that the property manager had given the neighbour who damaged the tenant’s plants “the benefit of the doubt”. c. The tenant felt that the landlord had failed to address maintenance issues and the health and safety of the tenants. d. The tenant felt the property manager only partially dealt with the driveway issue.
The tenant was given ample opportunity to respond to the evidence provided by the property manager on the day of the hearing. The fact that the tenant is unhappy or hurt by the property managers comments or written evidence is not a ground for a rehearing. If the tenant disagreed with the outcome the tenant should have appealed the decision. New evidence
The tenant referred to the following new evidence alleging it might impact the outcome of the hearing: a. a leaking roof since 2018; b. various healthy homes breaches; c. a door not being properly fixed; d. a neighbour using her bin; and e. other general maintenance issues.
The tenant has not identified any new or further evidence which was not available at the original hearing which could have altered the outcome of the initial hearing. If anything the above matters are additional claims which the tenant did not bring as part of her application. Observations
At the end of the hearing, the tenant stated that she was unhappy with the decision and did not accept it. If a party considers that an adjudicator has made the incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision. This is not grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant referred to a potential breach of privacy in relation to information relating to a previous tenant. This is not a matter for which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The previous tenant is entitled to raise the matter with the Privacy Commissioner. T Lee-Lewis 12 April 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4389343 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4389343 — Leaks

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