What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4578130?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4578130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578130?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9457705-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4578130?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4578130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578130?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9457705-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 6 Jordan Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4578130 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which I conducted by phone. The hearing was to consider whether the Tribunal should grant the tenant’s application for rehearing. Background
On 1 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $3,000.00 for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and for general disruption caused by drainage and sewage issues at the property where the tenancy premises were situated.
On 5 September 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing because she wanted her motel, clothing, replacement furniture and other costs reimbursed.
At the hearing today, the tenant said she had further evidence about the costs she incurred. She said she had to repay WINZ for money it advanced her, and the debt would continue as a deduction from her wages once she found work.
The tenant said she believed that the Tribunal did not address all the issues she raised in her application, whereas, on the landlord’s cross application everything the landlord raised was addressed.
In fact, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s cross application. The law
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.
In the Wellington City Council v McMillan (2003) DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” set a high standard, stating: They must obviously apply....to cases of procedural error e.g. A hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; or the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available.... In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First, the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable the parties to in effect appeal by way of an application for a rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: •There was no procedural error; both parties attended the hearing and gave evidence. •The Tribunal considered all the matters the tenant raised including the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of expenses (motel costs, clothing, furniture etc). This is detailed from paragraphs 26-33 under the heading ‘Remedies’. •The Tribunal did not give greater attention to the landlord’s cross application. That application was dismissed, and a finding made that it was an abuse of process. •That the tenant now has further evidence of the expenses she incurred does not mean that there is new evidence that would justify a rehearing being granted. Evidence of the costs incurred would not change the finding about liability for those costs. •At paragraph 3 of the decision, I noted that the Tribunal considered all the documentary evidence the parties produced even though not all of it was referred to. •The tenant is unhappy with the decision; she considers that she should have been awarded reimbursement of her expenses in addition to compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. Being unhappy with the decision is not sufficient to establish grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant has not established any objective grounds that would justify a rehearing. Her remedy was to appeal the Tribunal’s decision. Result
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which I conducted by phone. The hearing was to consider whether the Tribunal should grant the tenant’s application for rehearing. Background
On 1 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $3,000.00 for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and for general disruption caused by drainage and sewage issues at the property where the tenancy premises were situated.
On 5 September 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing because she wanted her motel, clothing, replacement furniture and other costs reimbursed.
At the hearing today, the tenant said she had further evidence about the costs she incurred. She said she had to repay WINZ for money it advanced her, and the debt would continue as a deduction from her wages once she found work.
The tenant said she believed that the Tribunal did not address all the issues she raised in her application, whereas, on the landlord’s cross application everything the landlord raised was addressed.
In fact, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s cross application. The law
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.
In the Wellington City Council v McMillan (2003) DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” set a high standard, stating: They must obviously apply....to cases of procedural error e.g. A hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; or the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available.... In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First, the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable the parties to in effect appeal by way of an application for a rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: •There was no procedural error; both parties attended the hearing and gave evidence. •The Tribunal considered all the matters the tenant raised including the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of expenses (motel costs, clothing, furniture etc). This is detailed from paragraphs 26-33 under the heading ‘Remedies’. •The Tribunal did not give greater attention to the landlord’s cross application. That application was dismissed, and a finding made that it was an abuse of process. •That the tenant now has further evidence of the expenses she incurred does not mean that there is new evidence that would justify a rehearing being granted. Evidence of the costs incurred would not change the finding about liability for those costs. •At paragraph 3 of the decision, I noted that the Tribunal considered all the documentary evidence the parties produced even though not all of it was referred to. •The tenant is unhappy with the decision; she considers that she should have been awarded reimbursement of her expenses in addition to compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. Being unhappy with the decision is not sufficient to establish grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant has not established any objective grounds that would justify a rehearing. Her remedy was to appeal the Tribunal’s decision. Result
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578130 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Jordan Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578130 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Jordan Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions