What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4511649?

The tribunal order states: No order is made for suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4511649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4511649?

The primary dispute was Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4511649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9271497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4511649?

The tribunal order states: No order is made for suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4511649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4511649?

The primary dispute was Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4511649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9271497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Suite 52, 2 Armoy Drive, East Tamaki, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4511649 — Rubbish Removal

Order

No order is made for suppression.
The applications of both the applicant and the respondents are dismissed.

Reasons

Parties

Hongyu Yang, who I refer to in this decision as the applicant, appeared remotely. The applicant has applied for an order that the respondents pay the cost of removal of rubbish and unwanted belongings from the premises, following the order the Tribunal made on 6 April 2023 giving the application possession of the premises.
The applicant’s brother is Hongbo Yang. He appeared in person. I refer to him as the respondent, but he is in fact one of a number of the named respondents. He is, however, the only one who has made an application. He has applied for a rehearing, out of time, of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 April 2023. Interpreter
The respondent does not speak English. He did not request an interpreter when he made his application, but he brought within him to the hearing a Mr Jimmy Xue. He asked if Mr Xue could be his interpreter.
After questioning Mr Xue, a schoolteacher and tutor, who has lived in New Zealand for 30 years, I was satisfied that Mr Xue could act as interpreter. Mr Xue took the interpreter’s oath and the hearing proceeded. Background
The applicant acquired ownership of the property the subject of this application on 24 January 2023, following District Court decisions dated 9 April 2021 and 5 August 2022. 1 The history of the matter is set out in those two decisions and I do not repeat that history here.
The respondent was the defendant in those District Court proceedings. He took no steps in relation to those hearings, advising me that he did not receive notice of them. 2
Pursuant to the District Court decisions, the applicant acquired the property.
The respondent has never appealed these decisions.
The applicant then filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal for an order for possession of the property. The hearing was set down for 6 April 2023.
Ahead of the hearing of that application 3 , the respondent supplied a statement to the Tribunal. In this statement, he referred to “real estate fraud and theft”. Amongst other things, he alleged that the applicant had acquired the property at a cost of “zero yuan”, meaning zero dollars. The respondent’s version of events was denied by the applicant, who maintains that she is the lawful owner of the property and had acquired it pursuant to the District Court orders referred to above.
Also ahead of the hearing on 6 April 2023, the respondent sought an adjournment. That adjournment was declined. As was recorded in the decision of 6 April 2023, the respondent’s daughter and guardian nevertheless appeared at the hearing.
After hearing from the parties at the hearing on 6 April 2023, the Tribunal granted the order for possession. The decision stated that: There was no evidence or legal basis advanced as to why the respondents or any of them have any lawful right to occupy the premises. This view is fortified by the two District Court decisions referred to above. It seems that 1 See Yang and Lu v Yang and Lu [2021] NZDC 6463 2 Something the applicant strongly denies. 3 Held on 6.4.23 matters which Mr Yang wishes to advance now ought to have been raised when the matter was before the District Court. I note further that neither of those decisions were appealed. Current applications
The respondent applied for a rehearing out of time, on 11 May 2023.
The applicant has applied for an order that the respondent and the other named respondents to this application pay the cost of removal of rubbish and unwanted belongings from the premises.
I deal first with the respondent’s application and then with the applicant’s application. Application for a rehearing
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?

After being questioned by the Tribunal, the respondent freely accepted that nothing had gone wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. He received notice of the hearing and indeed had sought an adjournment of it.
His basis for wanting a rehearing is he alleges that the facts on which the District Court relied in reaching its decisions were wrong and that false and wrong information was provided to the Court. He wants to prove that those decisions were wrong.
The trouble is that the respondent did not appeal those decisions. My jurisdiction to order a rehearing, especially for one filed out of time, is limited to just the aspects I have discussed above.
I find that the respondent has not proved that “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur “. He is unable to point to anything that has gone wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. He has not identified any new evidence that was not available at the 6 April 2023 hearing.
He may well have a different view of the facts that were presented by the applicant to the District Court but the relevant remedy was to pursue the lodging of an appeal of the District Court decisions.
His application is dismissed. There will be no rehearing. The applicant’s claim
At the last hearing, the applicant sought to advance a claim for rent. The Tribunal stated: I dismiss the claim for “rent”. This is inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that the respondents were not tenants, but squatters. The applicant has already made enquiries about bringing a claim with the Disputes Tribunal. If she pursues the matter in the Disputes Tribunal, she should provide it with a copy of this decision and the earlier District Court decisions, so that the Disputes Tribunal understands the background to her claim.
The applicant informs me that she has filed a Disputes Tribunal claim, set down for hearing in September 2023. She needs to pursue any claim for the cost of removal of the respondent’s belongings or any damage or other loss, through the Disputes Tribunal. I explained this to the applicant at the last hearing and did so again during the course of the hearing today.
The applicant’s application is also dismissed.

Order

No order is made for suppression.
The applications of both the applicant and the respondents are dismissed.

Reasons

Parties

Hongyu Yang, who I refer to in this decision as the applicant, appeared remotely. The applicant has applied for an order that the respondents pay the cost of removal of rubbish and unwanted belongings from the premises, following the order the Tribunal made on 6 April 2023 giving the application possession of the premises.
The applicant’s brother is Hongbo Yang. He appeared in person. I refer to him as the respondent, but he is in fact one of a number of the named respondents. He is, however, the only one who has made an application. He has applied for a rehearing, out of time, of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 April 2023. Interpreter
The respondent does not speak English. He did not request an interpreter when he made his application, but he brought within him to the hearing a Mr Jimmy Xue. He asked if Mr Xue could be his interpreter.
After questioning Mr Xue, a schoolteacher and tutor, who has lived in New Zealand for 30 years, I was satisfied that Mr Xue could act as interpreter. Mr Xue took the interpreter’s oath and the hearing proceeded. Background
The applicant acquired ownership of the property the subject of this application on 24 January 2023, following District Court decisions dated 9 April 2021 and 5 August 2022. 1 The history of the matter is set out in those two decisions and I do not repeat that history here.
The respondent was the defendant in those District Court proceedings. He took no steps in relation to those hearings, advising me that he did not receive notice of them. 2
Pursuant to the District Court decisions, the applicant acquired the property.
The respondent has never appealed these decisions.
The applicant then filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal for an order for possession of the property. The hearing was set down for 6 April 2023.
Ahead of the hearing of that application 3 , the respondent supplied a statement to the Tribunal. In this statement, he referred to “real estate fraud and theft”. Amongst other things, he alleged that the applicant had acquired the property at a cost of “zero yuan”, meaning zero dollars. The respondent’s version of events was denied by the applicant, who maintains that she is the lawful owner of the property and had acquired it pursuant to the District Court orders referred to above.
Also ahead of the hearing on 6 April 2023, the respondent sought an adjournment. That adjournment was declined. As was recorded in the decision of 6 April 2023, the respondent’s daughter and guardian nevertheless appeared at the hearing.
After hearing from the parties at the hearing on 6 April 2023, the Tribunal granted the order for possession. The decision stated that: There was no evidence or legal basis advanced as to why the respondents or any of them have any lawful right to occupy the premises. This view is fortified by the two District Court decisions referred to above. It seems that 1 See Yang and Lu v Yang and Lu [2021] NZDC 6463 2 Something the applicant strongly denies. 3 Held on 6.4.23 matters which Mr Yang wishes to advance now ought to have been raised when the matter was before the District Court. I note further that neither of those decisions were appealed. Current applications
The respondent applied for a rehearing out of time, on 11 May 2023.
The applicant has applied for an order that the respondent and the other named respondents to this application pay the cost of removal of rubbish and unwanted belongings from the premises.
I deal first with the respondent’s application and then with the applicant’s application. Application for a rehearing
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?

After being questioned by the Tribunal, the respondent freely accepted that nothing had gone wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. He received notice of the hearing and indeed had sought an adjournment of it.
His basis for wanting a rehearing is he alleges that the facts on which the District Court relied in reaching its decisions were wrong and that false and wrong information was provided to the Court. He wants to prove that those decisions were wrong.
The trouble is that the respondent did not appeal those decisions. My jurisdiction to order a rehearing, especially for one filed out of time, is limited to just the aspects I have discussed above.
I find that the respondent has not proved that “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur “. He is unable to point to anything that has gone wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. He has not identified any new evidence that was not available at the 6 April 2023 hearing.
He may well have a different view of the facts that were presented by the applicant to the District Court but the relevant remedy was to pursue the lodging of an appeal of the District Court decisions.
His application is dismissed. There will be no rehearing. The applicant’s claim
At the last hearing, the applicant sought to advance a claim for rent. The Tribunal stated: I dismiss the claim for “rent”. This is inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that the respondents were not tenants, but squatters. The applicant has already made enquiries about bringing a claim with the Disputes Tribunal. If she pursues the matter in the Disputes Tribunal, she should provide it with a copy of this decision and the earlier District Court decisions, so that the Disputes Tribunal understands the background to her claim.
The applicant informs me that she has filed a Disputes Tribunal claim, set down for hearing in September 2023. She needs to pursue any claim for the cost of removal of the respondent’s belongings or any damage or other loss, through the Disputes Tribunal. I explained this to the applicant at the last hearing and did so again during the course of the hearing today.
The applicant’s application is also dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4511649 — Rubbish Removal at Room Suite 52, 2 Armoy Drive, East Tamaki, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4511649 — Rubbish Removal at Room Suite 52, 2 Armoy Drive, East Tamaki, Auckland

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