What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694795 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4694795?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694795?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10169829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694795 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4694795?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694795?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10169829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694795 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 April 2024. The tenant attended by telephone with permission.
On 1 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order refunding the bond of $750.00 to the tenant.
On the same day, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had attended Court, and it would be unfair not to allow her to join the hearing.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord says she attended Court at 7.30am on 1 February 2024. The hearing proceeded at 9.30am as scheduled, and the landlord did not attend or try to attend. She was certainly not prevented from attending.
The landlord said she waited until 9.45am when the counter opened, and it sounded like the court officer could not find the case in the list. Later the landlord said she received confirmation of the date and time of the hearing, but it did not tell her which hearing room to go to.
The hearing notice was sent to the landlord by email, post, and SMS, on 8 December 2023. The notice clearly told the landlord that the hearing would proceed in Hearing Room 18, and it did.
The landlord says she has a claim against the bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord says the tenant did not give her the required 2 weeks’ notice (there was no written tenancy agreement) and there was damage to the property caused by the tenant (she referred to window hinges and the fan heater in the bathroom).
The landlord also says she has both emailed and physically filed evidence on which she relies to support these claims. However, there is nothing on the Tribunal’s file.
The landlord spoke through an interpreter at the hearing. She appeared to understand much of what I was saying. The tenant said an interpreter was not present at Court on 1 February 2024. I can see from the file that an interpreter was booked. I accept that, although an interpreter’s role is not to help people find out where to go, there would have been a language barrier to overcome to obtain assistance from court staff. That said, I do not view the landlord’s reasons for not attending the hearing as persuasive. The Tribunal is being asked to accept that the landlord was unable, for 2 hours, to find the correct hearing room. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure.
A further concern is that the tenancy ended in June 2023, about 10 months ago. The bond has still not been refunded. The landlord, despite earlier Disputes Tribunal proceedings in September 2023, has at no stage filed her own claim seeking payment from the bond. The Tribunal’s order of 1 February 2024 did note that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. It is a statutory requirement.
Given (1) the landlord’s reasons for non-attendance, which was basically due to her own error; (2) the lack of evidence supporting the landlord’s claims; (3) the failure by the landlord to file an application for payment from the bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre; and (4) the length of time since the tenancy ended, I have decided not to grant a rehearing.
It is important to note that this does not deny the landlord recourse to the Tribunal in respect of the tenancy. She can still file her own application. This would help to ensure that proper particulars of the claim, and supporting evidence, are provided.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 April 2024. The tenant attended by telephone with permission.

On 1 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order refunding the bond of $750.00 to the tenant.

On the same day, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had attended Court, and it would be unfair not to allow her to join the hearing.

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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord says she attended Court at 7.30am on 1 February 2024. The hearing proceeded at 9.30am as scheduled, and the landlord did not attend or try to attend. She was certainly not prevented from attending.

The landlord said she waited until 9.45am when the counter opened, and it sounded like the court officer could not find the case in the list. Later the landlord said she received confirmation of the date and time of the hearing, but it did not tell her which hearing room to go to.

The hearing notice was sent to the landlord by email, post, and SMS, on 8 December 2023. The notice clearly told the landlord that the hearing would proceed in Hearing Room 18, and it did.

The landlord says she has a claim against the bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord says the tenant did not give her the required 2 weeks’ notice (there was no written tenancy agreement) and there was damage to the property caused by the tenant (she referred to window hinges and the fan heater in the bathroom).

The landlord also says she has both emailed and physically filed evidence on which she relies to support these claims. However, there is nothing on the Tribunal’s file.

The landlord spoke through an interpreter at the hearing. She appeared to understand much of what I was saying. The tenant said an interpreter was not present at Court on 1 February 2024. I can see from the file that an interpreter was booked. I accept that, although an interpreter’s role is not to help people find out where to go, there would have been a language barrier to overcome to obtain assistance from court staff. That said, I do not view the landlord’s reasons for not attending the hearing as persuasive. The Tribunal is being asked to accept that the landlord was unable, for 2 hours, to find the correct hearing room. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure.

A further concern is that the tenancy ended in June 2023, about 10 months ago. The bond has still not been refunded. The landlord, despite earlier Disputes Tribunal proceedings in September 2023, has at no stage filed her own claim seeking payment from the bond. The Tribunal’s order of 1 February 2024 did note that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. It is a statutory requirement.

Given (1) the landlord’s reasons for non-attendance, which was basically due to her own error; (2) the lack of evidence supporting the landlord’s claims; (3) the failure by the landlord to file an application for payment from the bond, which was not lodged with the Bond Centre; and (4) the length of time since the tenancy ended, I have decided not to grant a rehearing.

It is important to note that this does not deny the landlord recourse to the Tribunal in respect of the tenancy. She can still file her own application. This would help to ensure that proper particulars of the claim, and supporting evidence, are provided.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694795 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694795 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

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