What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4424505?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4424505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4424505?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4424505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9265964-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4424505?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4424505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4424505?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4424505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9265964-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

158A Sunnynook Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4424505 — Healthy homes

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Russian interpreter attended the hearing, but the landlord did not require assistance.

On 1 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages (retaliatory notice and heating) and release of the bond.

On 23 May 2023, Tatjana Young applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not received notice of the hearing, information was withheld from the other party, costs were overestimated, and relevant evidence was not available for consideration.

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 Tatjana Young has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The application for rehearing was filed outside the statutory timeframe of 5 working days (section 105(2) Residential Tenancies Act) and no reasons were given for the late filing by the landlord and she did not seek further time for the filing.

The landlord claims that she did not receive notice of the hearing held on 1 May 2023. She said that she has two email addresses and did not check the email address used for notice of the hearing.

The email address used for the notice of hearing was the email address used by the landlord and tenant when corresponding around the time that the tenant filed proceedings in October 2022. It is also the email address used to notify the landlord of the hearing to consider the rehearing today. I note that the landlord said she only started checking this email address after lodging her application for rehearing.

The notice of hearing was sent to the parties by email dated 22 March 2023. The landlord claims that she had requested that the hearing be cancelled. At the hearing the reason the landlord gave for the cancellation was because the tenant had left the premises which were damaged by flood and therefore the tenancy had ended.

It turns out that the landlord’s email to “cancel” the hearing was sent on 23 March 2023 to the “no-reply” email address used to notify the landlord of the 1 May 2023 hearing. This is clear confirmation that the landlord did receive notice but did not think the hearing should proceed. The landlord confirmed that she did not receive any reply to the request to “cancel” the hearing and she did not follow up with the Tribunal or attend the hearing.

The remaining grounds presented by the landlord are not grounds to establish that a rehearing is required but rather reasons why the landlord does not agree with the order.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Russian interpreter attended the hearing, but the landlord did not require assistance.
On 1 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages (retaliatory notice and heating) and release of the bond.
On 23 May 2023, Tatjana Young applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not received notice of the hearing, information was withheld from the other party, costs were overestimated, and relevant evidence was not available for consideration.
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 Tatjana Young has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The application for rehearing was filed outside the statutory timeframe of 5 working days (section 105(2) Residential Tenancies Act) and no reasons were given for the late filing by the landlord and she did not seek further time for the filing.
The landlord claims that she did not receive notice of the hearing held on 1 May 2023. She said that she has two email addresses and did not check the email address used for notice of the hearing.
The email address used for the notice of hearing was the email address used by the landlord and tenant when corresponding around the time that the tenant filed proceedings in October 2022. It is also the email address used to notify the landlord of the hearing to consider the rehearing today. I note that the landlord said she only started checking this email address after lodging her application for rehearing.
The notice of hearing was sent to the parties by email dated 22 March 2023. The landlord claims that she had requested that the hearing be cancelled. At the hearing the reason the landlord gave for the cancellation was because the tenant had left the premises which were damaged by flood and therefore the tenancy had ended.
It turns out that the landlord’s email to “cancel” the hearing was sent on 23 March 2023 to the “no-reply” email address used to notify the landlord of the 1 May 2023 hearing. This is clear confirmation that the landlord did receive notice but did not think the hearing should proceed. The landlord confirmed that she did not receive any reply to the request to “cancel” the hearing and she did not follow up with the Tribunal or attend the hearing.
The remaining grounds presented by the landlord are not grounds to establish that a rehearing is required but rather reasons why the landlord does not agree with the order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4424505 — Healthy homes at 158A Sunnynook Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4424505 — Healthy homes at 158A Sunnynook Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

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