What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689013 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4689013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10406829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689013 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4689013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10406829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Flagstaff Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689013 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 29 April 2024, the Tribunal made an order for compensation for rent.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal miscalculated rent arrears, and that the tenant was compensated for the difficulties they had finding alternate accommodation.
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 landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord’s ongoing belief that the tenant owed rent arrears in the result of their failure to understand an earlier order of Adjudicator Woodhouse that determined that the tenant had a rent credit as at 24 July 2023 of $1399.62. Adjudicator Woodhouse’s order is very clearly written and sets out the position at that time in clear terms.
I also explained that order to the landlord in the hearing. For completeness, Adjudicator Woodhouse reviewed the entire rent summary to 24 July 2023, applied the rent abatement agreed back to 27 January 2023, determined the total rent owing between 27 January 2023 and 24 July 2023 and the total rent paid for the same period. That process showed that the tenants had overpaid rent by $1399.62. So, the rent summary should have shown the tenant in credit by $1399.62 on that date. That effectively put the tenants 3 weeks in advance. This was then remedied by them not paying rent for three weeks and resuming payments in the week of 13 August 2023.
Adjudicator Woodhouse’s order was not appealed.
The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.
The applications were heard in person and was attended by both parties. The landlord had ample opportunity to present his case, to bring evidence and to reply to the tenant’s evidence in the normal way of hearings in the Tenancy Tribunal.
The matter was fully argued at the original hearings and all relevant evidence presented to the Tribunal was considered.
There was no procedural error. The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. The landlord has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing.
The landlord criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. Cases are decided on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence.
Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers that an Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision.
A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what the landlord is seeking. He is not entitled to a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.
The original order made by the Tenancy Tribunal on 24 April 2024 stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 29 April 2024, the Tribunal made an order for compensation for rent.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal miscalculated rent arrears, and that the tenant was compensated for the difficulties they had finding alternate accommodation.
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 landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord’s ongoing belief that the tenant owed rent arrears in the result of their failure to understand an earlier order of Adjudicator Woodhouse that determined that the tenant had a rent credit as at 24 July 2023 of $1399.62. Adjudicator Woodhouse’s order is very clearly written and sets out the position at that time in clear terms.
I also explained that order to the landlord in the hearing. For completeness, Adjudicator Woodhouse reviewed the entire rent summary to 24 July 2023, applied the rent abatement agreed back to 27 January 2023, determined the total rent owing between 27 January 2023 and 24 July 2023 and the total rent paid for the same period. That process showed that the tenants had overpaid rent by $1399.62. So, the rent summary should have shown the tenant in credit by $1399.62 on that date. That effectively put the tenants 3 weeks in advance. This was then remedied by them not paying rent for three weeks and resuming payments in the week of 13 August 2023.
Adjudicator Woodhouse’s order was not appealed.
The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.
The applications were heard in person and was attended by both parties. The landlord had ample opportunity to present his case, to bring evidence and to reply to the tenant’s evidence in the normal way of hearings in the Tenancy Tribunal.
The matter was fully argued at the original hearings and all relevant evidence presented to the Tribunal was considered.
There was no procedural error. The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. The landlord has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing.
The landlord criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. Cases are decided on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence.
Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers that an Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision.
A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what the landlord is seeking. He is not entitled to a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.
The original order made by the Tenancy Tribunal on 24 April 2024 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689013 — Rent arrears at 12 Flagstaff Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689013 — Rent arrears at 12 Flagstaff Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions