What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613476 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4613476?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613476?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9921870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613476 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4613476?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613476?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9921870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613476 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 2 November 2023, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Tenant’s application for compensation.
On 4 November 2023, Mr Alexis Serrano applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the adjudicator improperly admitted evidence due to lack of information and new evidence had become available.
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 the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tenant claimed the photographs filed by the Landlord of the illegal wiring were improperly filed because they were taken after the power outage in March 2023.
The Tenant claimed he was never present at the house when the outages occurred and provided travel itineraries of when he was overseas. The Tenant acknowledged that after the last hearing, he tried to think of evidence to prove his case and retrieved his travel itineraries. These were available to him at the time of the hearing but he only thought of submitting it as evidence after the hearing.
The Tenant did not have all this evidence at the time of the hearing because he did not think it was relevant. His son and daughter also gave evidence on his behalf at the initial hearing but they did not know the entire facts.
The Tenant sought to admit evidence stating the electrical issues were still ongoing today and wanted to bring in equipment to support his case however this was clearly the Tenants attempt to present the case he never presented before.
The Tenant claimed the Landlord stated he modified things in the house. The Tenant wanted to refute this.
The Tenant claimed the Landlord gave incorrect information about the extension of the switch. The Tenant wanted to refute this.
The Tenant’s reasons provided for a rehearing all appear to be attempts to argue his case again because he was not present at the initial hearing. He intentionally found evidence. The Landlords evidence was not improperly admitted evidence but rather the Tenant wanting to dispute the Landlords evidence. These are not reasons for a rehearing.
If the Tenant does not agree with reasons of the Order, then the Tenant may want to seek legal advice regarding other avenues to dispute this decision.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 2 November 2023, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Tenant’s application for compensation.

On 4 November 2023, Mr Alexis Serrano applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the adjudicator improperly admitted evidence due to lack of information and new evidence had become available.

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 the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The Tenant claimed the photographs filed by the Landlord of the illegal wiring were improperly filed because they were taken after the power outage in March 2023.

The Tenant claimed he was never present at the house when the outages occurred and provided travel itineraries of when he was overseas. The Tenant acknowledged that after the last hearing, he tried to think of evidence to prove his case and retrieved his travel itineraries. These were available to him at the time of the hearing but he only thought of submitting it as evidence after the hearing.

The Tenant did not have all this evidence at the time of the hearing because he did not think it was relevant. His son and daughter also gave evidence on his behalf at the initial hearing but they did not know the entire facts.

The Tenant sought to admit evidence stating the electrical issues were still ongoing today and wanted to bring in equipment to support his case however this was clearly the Tenants attempt to present the case he never presented before.

The Tenant claimed the Landlord stated he modified things in the house. The Tenant wanted to refute this.

The Tenant claimed the Landlord gave incorrect information about the extension of the switch. The Tenant wanted to refute this.

The Tenant’s reasons provided for a rehearing all appear to be attempts to argue his case again because he was not present at the initial hearing. He intentionally found evidence. The Landlords evidence was not improperly admitted evidence but rather the Tenant wanting to dispute the Landlords evidence. These are not reasons for a rehearing.

If the Tenant does not agree with reasons of the Order, then the Tenant may want to seek legal advice regarding other avenues to dispute this decision.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613476 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613476 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions