What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4664570 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4664570?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664570?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4664570 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4664570?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664570?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 32 Esmonde Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4664570 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by phone as he did not attend Court in person.
The landlord says that he did not receive the hearing notice. However, it was posted to his home address, provided to tenancy services on 14 May 2024.
Tenancy services telephoned the landlord after sending the hearing notice, at my direction, to ensure he was aware of today’s date.
On 15 December 2023, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the tenant.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he knew nothing about the applications or the hearing and that he had not received the hearing notice.
The applications were emailed to the landlord when they were filed. On 23 August 2023, the landlord telephoned tenancy services to enquire about the applications and ask for them to be resent to him. The landlord provided an updated email address. The applications were emailed to him.
On 9 October 2023 the landlord contacted tenancy services again, and was given further information about the applications.
The hearing notice was emailed to the landlord, at the updated email address he provided in August, on 1 November 2023. A text message was sent at the same time.
A reminder text message was sent on 13 December 2023 and another at 7am on the morning of the hearing.
The text message reminders were sent to the same phone number I used to contact the landlord today.
In the hearing today, the landlord said that he missed the December hearing because his wife was diagnosed with a terminal illness and the hearing slipped his mind.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There is no procedural error giving rise to the risk of a miscarriage of justice apparent on the file.
The landlord was clearly aware of the application as he contacted tenancy services about it twice.
The hearing notices were sent to the email address provided by the landlord and text reminders sent to his confirmed phone number.
The landlord acknowledged today, that the hearing slipped his mind.
In relation to today’s hearing, the landlord’s position is that tenancy services is “corrupt” and they have been directed not to speak to him or to provide him information.
This is inconsistent with the record on a conversation between tenancy services and the landlord, held for the purpose of ensuring that the landlord was aware of the hearing date. The landlord accepts that conversation took place.
Further, the landlord was given the opportunity to be heard via telephone and make submissions on the re-hearing.
I consider there has no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for re-hearing is dismissed.
I direct that a printed copy of this decision be made available to the landlord, in person, from the Auckland District Court from tomorrow, 7 June 2024.
The landlord was advised on the outcome of this hearing at the conclusion of the hearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by phone as he did not attend Court in person.

The landlord says that he did not receive the hearing notice. However, it was posted to his home address, provided to tenancy services on 14 May 2024.

Tenancy services telephoned the landlord after sending the hearing notice, at my direction, to ensure he was aware of today’s date.

On 15 December 2023, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the tenant.

On 8 February 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he knew nothing about the applications or the hearing and that he had not received the hearing notice.

The applications were emailed to the landlord when they were filed. On 23 August 2023, the landlord telephoned tenancy services to enquire about the applications and ask for them to be resent to him. The landlord provided an updated email address. The applications were emailed to him.

On 9 October 2023 the landlord contacted tenancy services again, and was given further information about the applications.

The hearing notice was emailed to the landlord, at the updated email address he provided in August, on 1 November 2023. A text message was sent at the same time.

A reminder text message was sent on 13 December 2023 and another at 7am on the morning of the hearing.

The text message reminders were sent to the same phone number I used to contact the landlord today.

In the hearing today, the landlord said that he missed the December hearing because his wife was diagnosed with a terminal illness and the hearing slipped his mind.

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

There is no procedural error giving rise to the risk of a miscarriage of justice apparent on the file.

The landlord was clearly aware of the application as he contacted tenancy services about it twice.

The hearing notices were sent to the email address provided by the landlord and text reminders sent to his confirmed phone number.

The landlord acknowledged today, that the hearing slipped his mind.

In relation to today’s hearing, the landlord’s position is that tenancy services is “corrupt” and they have been directed not to speak to him or to provide him information.

This is inconsistent with the record on a conversation between tenancy services and the landlord, held for the purpose of ensuring that the landlord was aware of the hearing date. The landlord accepts that conversation took place.

Further, the landlord was given the opportunity to be heard via telephone and make submissions on the re-hearing.

I consider there has no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for re-hearing is dismissed.

I direct that a printed copy of this decision be made available to the landlord, in person, from the Auckland District Court from tomorrow, 7 June 2024.

The landlord was advised on the outcome of this hearing at the conclusion of the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664570 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 32 Esmonde Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664570 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 32 Esmonde Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

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