What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4535510?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is granted possession of the premises immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4535510?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535510?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756227-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4535510?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is granted possession of the premises immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4535510?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535510?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756227-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 105, 187 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4535510 — Boarding House

Order

The landlord is granted possession of the premises immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 November 2023 to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.
On 30 October 2023, the Tribunal made an order by consent approving the parties’ full and final settlement of their respective claims. The consent order was incorrectly dated as 30 November 2023 but the order was duly issued on 30 October 2023.
The contents of the parties’ agreement reached and confirmed by the Tribunal order on 30 October 2023 reads: a. The tenancy will terminate on 16 November 2023. b. The landlord will pay $1,500.00 to the tenant on 16 November 2023 in full and final settlement of the claims filed herein.
On 6 November 2023, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was not allowed to state his claims in full and that he was forced to enter into an agreement with the landlord under duress. Mr Ross repeated those grounds in today’s hearing to consider his rehearing application.
In addition, Mr Ross also filed a Memorandum stating that he had lack of notice of what the 30 October 2023 hearing would be covering, stating that new evidence in the form of a building report is required to be adduced by the landlord, requested an opportunity to cross-examine the building inspector and he has not been offered alternative accommodation, but other student tenants of the boarding house had been.
Mr Ross claims that he wasn’t heard on the retaliatory issue at all and feels “railroaded” and had no choice but to agree.
In summary, Mr Ross was seeking to relitigate the entire proceedings, including a subsequent application number 4722470 which was not included in the intituling of the consent order reached on 30 October 2023.
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?

Mr Ross failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing of the consent order reached on 30 October 2023.
I have listened to the recording of the hearing on 30 October 2023. Mr Ross had submitted on the retaliatory issue and had been properly heard prior the break for lunch where he was encouraged to negotiate and try and reach an amicable settlement with the landlord and their counsel.
On return from lunch, the hearing reconvened and Mr Ross and the landlord and their counsel discussed outside court for another 10 minutes, before returning to the hearing room and confirmed that the parties have reached a full and final settlement of the claims and counterclaims filed, including the retaliatory issue on the terms stated on the consent order dated 30 November 2023.
I am satisfied that Mr Ross reached that agreement after having voluntarily discussed and agreed to those terms. I am satisfied that Mr Ross was not under “duress” as now claimed in the rehearing application.
The recording of the hearing and discussions made in court confirm that Mr Ross and the parties knew the content of what they were discussing. Mr Ross appreciated the risk of an unfavourable outcome of the proceedings and ultimately came to these terms of agreement with the landlord: a. The tenancy will terminate on 16 November 2023. b. The landlord will pay $1,500.00 to the tenant on 16 November 2023 in full and final settlement of the claims filed herein.
Mr Ross provided no cogent grounds on why those agreed terms of settlement should be overturned and set aside.
The settlement was endorsed and confirmed by Mr Ross in open court after a period of discussion with the landlord and their counsel, outside of the hearing.
It would be inequitable to allow the parties to resile from the terms of a binding order that was reached by consent between the parties after a period of negotiation between themselves.
I do not consider it to be in the public interest that parties are allowed to renege from agreements reached between themselves and which was duly endorsed by the court.
For those reasons, this application for the rehearing fails.
The consent order reached on 30 October 2023 remains valid and enforceable by the parties.
On 11 December 2023, the landlord’s counsel emailed the Registry as follows: The tenant still has not vacated the property, several weeks since the agreed termination date of this tenancy so the landlord has applied for an eviction warrant. However, as per the email chain below and letters attached, the Civil Enforcement team require an order for possession to be granted in addition to the consent order before we can obtain an eviction warrant. We note that we had requested an order for possession in the previous application however this was not made by the adjudicator in either the consent order dated 30 October 2023 or the rehearing consideration order dated 17 November 2023. We have made a further tenancy tribunal application reference 4761558 as attached requesting that the possession order be made.
Pursuant to section 85 RTA, the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies, including applications regarding boarding house tenancies under Part 2A of the RTA.
Without being encumbered by strict legal forms or technicalities, the landlord is entitled to an order for possession due to the tenancy being terminated on 16 November 2023 pursuant to the parties’ agreement reached and confirmed by the Tribunal order issued on 30 October 2023.
I therefore consider it expeditious and fair to issue a further order today granting possession to the landlord for enforcement purposes.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535510 — Boarding House at Room 105, 187 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535510 — Boarding House at Room 105, 187 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023,

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