What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693578 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4693578?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693578?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693578?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10527225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693578 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4693578?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693578?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693578?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10527225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693578 — Property damage

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlords’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 24 May 2024, the Tribunal ordered the landlords to pay the tenant must pay the tenant $2,358.54. Landlords’ submissions
The landlords applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: I do not agree that I should have to pay [the tenant] for any harassment because it was never harassment from my side. I have never intentionally done anything to harm him or his property. Instead I have a list of dates and times when [the tenant] and his mother verbally abused my family. I also don't agree that the notice was unlawful because [the tenant] was willing to break the tenancy fix term contract and leave himself. He told the police that he wanted to leave immediately and didn’t care even about getting his bond back. That is when the police advised us to give him a notice to go as soon as he could find a place to stay and that's what we ended up doing. As soon as we gave him that notice he left within days. By giving a notice I think I managed to get all of us out of the toxic environment. I think I am entitled to get money for the replacement of the motor of my gate which was damaged when [the tenant] forcefully opened the gate. Upon advice from the tenancy services we issued [the tenant] with the 63 day notice. Since then we have occupied the flat ourselves
At the hearing, the landlords in substance reiterated their grounds just mentioned, and their arguments from the hearing. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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..
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely 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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. Conclusion
The landlords are dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Tribunal already carefully considered the substance of the issues they raise again.
A rehearing should not be granted to give the applicant another opportunity to present their case, or because the applicant is unhappy with the decision.
The landlords’ comments do not raise a credible concern that a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong may have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlords’ application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 24 May 2024, the Tribunal ordered the landlords to pay the tenant must pay the tenant $2,358.54. Landlords’ submissions
The landlords applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: I do not agree that I should have to pay [the tenant] for any harassment because it was never harassment from my side. I have never intentionally done anything to harm him or his property. Instead I have a list of dates and times when [the tenant] and his mother verbally abused my family. I also don't agree that the notice was unlawful because [the tenant] was willing to break the tenancy fix term contract and leave himself. He told the police that he wanted to leave immediately and didn’t care even about getting his bond back. That is when the police advised us to give him a notice to go as soon as he could find a place to stay and that's what we ended up doing. As soon as we gave him that notice he left within days. By giving a notice I think I managed to get all of us out of the toxic environment. I think I am entitled to get money for the replacement of the motor of my gate which was damaged when [the tenant] forcefully opened the gate. Upon advice from the tenancy services we issued [the tenant] with the 63 day notice. Since then we have occupied the flat ourselves
At the hearing, the landlords in substance reiterated their grounds just mentioned, and their arguments from the hearing. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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..
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely 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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. Conclusion
The landlords are dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision. However, the Tribunal already carefully considered the substance of the issues they raise again.
A rehearing should not be granted to give the applicant another opportunity to present their case, or because the applicant is unhappy with the decision.
The landlords’ comments do not raise a credible concern that a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong may have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693578 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693578 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions