What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544249 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544249?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589161-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544249 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544249?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589161-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34B Leyland Street, Onekawa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544249 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.

On 24 August 2023, the Landlord applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal Orders dated 21 August 2023.

The Landlord submitted that he was in Asia from 19 April 2023 for three months and did not receive notification of the hearing date. The person he had left in charge of his business, did not check his emails so they were not aware of the date or time. He now wanted to dispute the claims made by the Tenant. The Landlord provided flight tickets which substantiated his and his father’s travel out of New Zealand. If he had known when the court date and time was, they would have appointed someone to attend but the court did not send this to them until they were away.

The Tenant disputed this and submitted that the Landlord should have delegated their affairs to someone whilst they were away. The Landlord would also have been able to access their emails or mobile from overseas. The Tenant advised during one court phone call, the Landlord stated they were overseas at the time. They should have known that their matter was still in the process of being determined so they should have looked out for court correspondence.

The Tenant filed their application on 5 April 2023 which would have been served on the Landlord before they travelled overseas on 19 April 2023. The Landlord ought to have known a hearing would be allocated and left a person in charge of this. That person failed to do so.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord was aware that a hearing would be allocated at some stage before they left the country on 19 April 2023. At that stage, they should have alerted the person they left behind to manage their affairs so they could either attend the hearing on their behalf, seek an adjournment or arrange a representative. The Landlord never did this and so now the Landlord is seeking a second chance to have their case heard. This is not a reason for a rehearing.

The Landlords application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.

On 24 August 2023, the Landlord applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal Orders dated 21 August 2023.

The Landlords application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544249 — Tenancy dispute at 34B Leyland Street, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544249 — Tenancy dispute at 34B Leyland Street, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions