What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4548792 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4548792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548792?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683558-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4548792 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4548792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548792?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683558-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Deas Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4548792 — Property damage

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Neither party attended today’s hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.
The landlord failed to attend the initial hearing on 8 September 2023 resulting in the matter being dismissed for want of prosecution.
The landlord then applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal dismissing the claim on the basis they did not get any reminder notice for the hearing on 8 September and hence did not turn up at the scheduled time.
According to the application for rehearing, the last email to TBT Property Management Limited was sent in July. There is a letter addressed to TBT dated 19 July 2023 with the notice of hearing. The Tribunal directed TBT Property to address this at today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application.
This morning, the landlord emailed the Registry seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing for these reasons: Kindly note we would need to request adjournment for the hearing as the property manager who was supposed to handle it is sick and is away today. We would kindly request you to please adjourn the hearing as she is away due to a family emergency and has to take care of her 5 year son.
TBT advised that property manager Vikalp Chhabra was supposed to come for the case and he has encountered a serious health condition and is on ACC now. No medical or ACC form has been submitted.
TBT also advised that Nancy Sharma can handle the hearing but she is also not available as it is a teacher only day and her son is with her, attaching an email indicating that a primary school is closed for staff only day.
I do not consider those grounds sufficient for an adjournment.
TBT has not addressed the facts stated at [4] above.
This is not the first time in which TBT failed to attend a Tribunal hearing and requested a last-minute adjournment without proper cause/grounds.
In application number 4594809, adjudicator T Prowse dismissed another claim filed by TBT, refusing a last-minute request to adjourn for these reasons:
The landlord sought an adjournment of the hearing this morning, their email said: I would need to place an urgent request for adjournment to this matter since the property manager who was looking into this is called for an emergency due to some personal reasons and is not available. I have just received confirmation that they will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled and that he is on emergency leave today. Can we please request for adjournment and get a new date for hearing.
I declined the adjournment, and the Registry sent the following email to the landlord at 9.17am with high importance at my request: “ The adjournment is declined. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. The landlord and or another representative can attend. This tenancy ended in April. The landlord should have all their evidence and be in a position to advance their claim. I expect the landlord to attend in person and bring the evidence that they rely on. In that regard I note that there is no photographs or inspection reports on file. The matter will proceed at the allocated time of 9.30 am. If the landlord does not attend then the application is likely to be struck out.”
The landlord did not attend the hearing. I have waited until 10am for the landlord to turn up but there has been no further communication from the landlord.
When considering an adjournment, the Tribunal balances fairness to the party with the other parties right to an expeditious hearing and outcome (see s85 RTA) and Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033. The landlord’s claim is five months old it is for a considerable amount of money. However, the landlord has filed little evidence which supports its claims that the tenants left the property in an unsatisfactory condition and caused damage to the property.
TBT Property Management is an established property management company who regularly appear in the Tribunal. They should be prepared to attend Tribunal hearings and should ensure that they have sufficient staff to do so. They should also ensure that all the evidence is on file, so that if an unexpected event occurs, such as a property manager becoming sick, then another property manager can attend the hearing and speak to that evidence and the claims. The property owner should be kept abreast of the situation, and as the landlord the owner should attend the hearing to speak to the claims if the property manager cannot or as well as the property manager.
I note that the request for an adjournment was sent at 12.03 am. I consider that if it was known that the property manger could not attend at that hour then TBT had an obligation to inform the owner to attend, and there was sufficient time for another property manager to be briefed and attend the hearing.
Hearing time in the Tribunal is a scarce resource and a new hearing may be some months away. The tenant is entitled to have this matter dealt with in a reasonable period of time and without further delay.
As the Applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time then the application is struck out. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For similar reasons, and in the above circumstances, I decline the TBT’s request to adjourn the hearing.
Ultimately, the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and this application for rehearing is accordingly dismissed.

Reasons

Neither party attended today’s hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.

The landlord failed to attend the initial hearing on 8 September 2023 resulting in the matter being dismissed for want of prosecution.

The landlord then applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal dismissing the claim on the basis they did not get any reminder notice for the hearing on 8 September and hence did not turn up at the scheduled time.

According to the application for rehearing, the last email to TBT Property Management Limited was sent in July. There is a letter addressed to TBT dated 19 July 2023 with the notice of hearing. The Tribunal directed TBT Property to address this at today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application.

This morning, the landlord emailed the Registry seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing for these reasons: Kindly note we would need to request adjournment for the hearing as the property manager who was supposed to handle it is sick and is away today. We would kindly request you to please adjourn the hearing as she is away due to a family emergency and has to take care of her 5 year son.

TBT advised that property manager Vikalp Chhabra was supposed to come for the case and he has encountered a serious health condition and is on ACC now. No medical or ACC form has been submitted.

TBT also advised that Nancy Sharma can handle the hearing but she is also not available as it is a teacher only day and her son is with her, attaching an email indicating that a primary school is closed for staff only day.

I do not consider those grounds sufficient for an adjournment.

TBT has not addressed the facts stated at [4] above.

This is not the first time in which TBT failed to attend a Tribunal hearing and requested a last-minute adjournment without proper cause/grounds.

In application number 4594809, adjudicator T Prowse dismissed another claim filed by TBT, refusing a last-minute request to adjourn for these reasons:

The landlord sought an adjournment of the hearing this morning, their email said: I would need to place an urgent request for adjournment to this matter since the property manager who was looking into this is called for an emergency due to some personal reasons and is not available. I have just received confirmation that they will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled and that he is on emergency leave today. Can we please request for adjournment and get a new date for hearing.

I declined the adjournment, and the Registry sent the following email to the landlord at 9.17am with high importance at my request: “ The adjournment is declined. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. The landlord and or another representative can attend. This tenancy ended in April. The landlord should have all their evidence and be in a position to advance their claim. I expect the landlord to attend in person and bring the evidence that they rely on. In that regard I note that there is no photographs or inspection reports on file. The matter will proceed at the allocated time of 9.30 am. If the landlord does not attend then the application is likely to be struck out.”

The landlord did not attend the hearing. I have waited until 10am for the landlord to turn up but there has been no further communication from the landlord.

When considering an adjournment, the Tribunal balances fairness to the party with the other parties right to an expeditious hearing and outcome (see s85 RTA) and Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033. The landlord’s claim is five months old it is for a considerable amount of money. However, the landlord has filed little evidence which supports its claims that the tenants left the property in an unsatisfactory condition and caused damage to the property.

TBT Property Management is an established property management company who regularly appear in the Tribunal. They should be prepared to attend Tribunal hearings and should ensure that they have sufficient staff to do so. They should also ensure that all the evidence is on file, so that if an unexpected event occurs, such as a property manager becoming sick, then another property manager can attend the hearing and speak to that evidence and the claims. The property owner should be kept abreast of the situation, and as the landlord the owner should attend the hearing to speak to the claims if the property manager cannot or as well as the property manager.

I note that the request for an adjournment was sent at 12.03 am. I consider that if it was known that the property manger could not attend at that hour then TBT had an obligation to inform the owner to attend, and there was sufficient time for another property manager to be briefed and attend the hearing.

Hearing time in the Tribunal is a scarce resource and a new hearing may be some months away. The tenant is entitled to have this matter dealt with in a reasonable period of time and without further delay.

As the Applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time then the application is struck out. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For similar reasons, and in the above circumstances, I decline the TBT’s request to adjourn the hearing.

Ultimately, the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and this application for rehearing is accordingly dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548792 — Property damage at 19 Deas Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548792 — Property damage at 19 Deas Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions