What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4541297?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4541297?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541297?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9542462-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4541297?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4541297?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541297?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9542462-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Vazey Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541297 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the application for consideration of re-hearing.

On 20 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, cleaning, altering lock without consent against the tenant.

On the same day an award for $2000.00 was made against the landlord for recovery of goods and damage to tenant’s belongings.

On 24 July 2023, Ms Shi applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: (a)some of the information provided under the “reasons” statements had been incorrectly recorded. (b)sha had more evidence to support landlord’s claim. (c)the landlord had several important points that required clarification to address the tenant’s unfair claims.

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 Ms Shi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The evidence referred to relating to the claim for damages was not new and reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. Just because the agent did not bring the evidence or realise it would be necessary for the original hearing is not enough to have a second go at the hearing.

In respect of the landlord seeking a rehearing in response to the claim by the tenant for the retention and damage of her belongings, Ms Shi confirmed she knew she had further information about the father coming to collect the tenant’s belongings in the future. This information was known to Ms Shi at the time of the hearing but she did not raise this matter at the hearing.

It appears only after the decision was released; Ms Shi put together the evidence that would have been required for the initial hearing.

I note there was a date that was incorrectly mentioned regarding when the tenant signed the tenancy, being in January 2022 not July 2022.

That mistake in itself does not materially affect the outcome of the original decision.

On that basis, the application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the application for consideration of re-hearing.

On 20 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, cleaning, altering lock without consent against the tenant.

On the same day an award for $2000.00 was made against the landlord for recovery of goods and damage to tenant’s belongings.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Shi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

It appears only after the decision was released; Ms Shi put together the evidence that would have been required for the initial hearing.

I note there was a date that was incorrectly mentioned regarding when the tenant signed the tenancy, being in January 2022 not July 2022.

That mistake in itself does not materially affect the outcome of the original decision.

On that basis, the application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541297 — Rent arrears at 31 Vazey Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541297 — Rent arrears at 31 Vazey Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

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