What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721437 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4721437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9831792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721437 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4721437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9831792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4721437 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended in person. Ms Rea attended by telephone for the landlord.
I pointed out to the tenant that this was a telephone hearing and that the notice of hearing stated so. She said that she had not received a notice of hearing, only a text message. She then produced a copy of the order directing this rehearing hearing and noted that it stated that the Tribunal would hear from the parties in person. Attached to the order was the notice of hearing that she had just told the Tribunal she had not received.
On 5 December 2023 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent a neighbour from interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. She also sought an order that the landlord evict the neighbour.
On 8 December the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that I was biased against her, that I refused to view her evidence and that I made favourable comments regarding what I was told by Ms Eder, the landlord’s representative at the original 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. 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. Discussion and Decision
The tenant claims that I was biased against her. Unsurprisingly, I reject that claim. The tenant could not point to any evidence of bias. That fact that I found against her is not evidence of bias.
I said at the original hearing that I had confidence that if Mr Eder, who represented the landlord at the original hearing, told me that the landlord had taken certain steps to rehouse the neighbour that the tenant complained about, that was likely to be true. The tenant took exception to that.
Ms Eder has represented the landlord in numerous hearings before me and I have always found her to be professional and reliable. She represents a large public organisation, and it would be highly damaging for its and her own reputation if she was found to have given knowingly false information to the Tribunal. For that reason, I was entitled to take her at her word.
I note that Ms Rea informed me that the process of finding other accommodation for the neighbour has progressed and that it was expected that she would move to the other accommodation at the end of this month.
In any case, the information from Ms Eder was not necessary for my decision because I found that there was no interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort or privacy such as to require any action by the landlord.
At the rehearing hearing the tenant raises three other points that I will now deal with.
The first is that she could not understand how I could come to a different conclusion from the adjudicator who heard her previous application based on the same facts.
Plainly the facts were not the same. I was concerned primarily with events since the hearing of the previous application. The Tribunal awarded the tenant compensation on her first application and that dealt with events to that date. The previous events provided relevant background, but my focus was on the evidence relating to the time since that hearing. Therefore, the evidence was not the same.
In addition, the landlord submitted evidence that was not before the previous adjudicator. The landlord’s case was the same, namely it was the tenant who was the main problem in the neighbourhood, not the neighbour, but the landlord did not have the evidence to support that at the previous hearing.
Second, the tenant said that she was taken by surprise by the landlord’s statements produced at the original hearing. There is nothing unusual in this Tribunal about a party producing evidence on the day. There are no rules about filing evidence in advance of the hearing. In some cases that might require an adjournment in fairness to the other party but that was not the case here.
The tenant was aware of the landlord’s position from the previous hearing. She complained that she would have produced her own independent statements if she had known the landlord would do so. But she was able to do that in support of her case if. She did not need to wait for the landlord to produce statements. I note as well that she declined to question the landlord’s witness who gave live evidence at the hearing.
Third, the tenant claimed that I did not look at her evidence.
I did not look at and listen to the tenant’s video and audio evidence during the hearing. There was a very considerable amount of it, and I chose to look at it and listen to it after the hearing had finished. It is unlikely that I would have been able to get through it in the hearing time left available. The tenant had given her evidence and the purpose of considering the remaining evidence was to see whether it corroborated her evidence and if so to what extent.
I did look at and listen to all the tenant’s evidence. It was a dispiriting experience. Most of the material was pointless such as video of cars and people using the shared driveway. Much of it plainly related to the period before the previous hearing. Taken together, it did not come anywhere near to establishing the tenant’s case.
The landlord’s evidence depicted the tenant and her partner as thoroughly unpleasant people, and I can understand why the tenant is unhappy that I accepted that evidence. But I was entitled to do so.
The tenant has not made out any ground for a rehearing and so her application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended in person. Ms Rea attended by telephone for the landlord.
I pointed out to the tenant that this was a telephone hearing and that the notice of hearing stated so. She said that she had not received a notice of hearing, only a text message. She then produced a copy of the order directing this rehearing hearing and noted that it stated that the Tribunal would hear from the parties in person. Attached to the order was the notice of hearing that she had just told the Tribunal she had not received.
On 5 December 2023 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent a neighbour from interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. She also sought an order that the landlord evict the neighbour.
On 8 December the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that I was biased against her, that I refused to view her evidence and that I made favourable comments regarding what I was told by Ms Eder, the landlord’s representative at the original 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. 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. Discussion and Decision
The tenant claims that I was biased against her. Unsurprisingly, I reject that claim. The tenant could not point to any evidence of bias. That fact that I found against her is not evidence of bias.
I said at the original hearing that I had confidence that if Mr Eder, who represented the landlord at the original hearing, told me that the landlord had taken certain steps to rehouse the neighbour that the tenant complained about, that was likely to be true. The tenant took exception to that.
Ms Eder has represented the landlord in numerous hearings before me and I have always found her to be professional and reliable. She represents a large public organisation, and it would be highly damaging for its and her own reputation if she was found to have given knowingly false information to the Tribunal. For that reason, I was entitled to take her at her word.
I note that Ms Rea informed me that the process of finding other accommodation for the neighbour has progressed and that it was expected that she would move to the other accommodation at the end of this month.
In any case, the information from Ms Eder was not necessary for my decision because I found that there was no interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort or privacy such as to require any action by the landlord.
At the rehearing hearing the tenant raises three other points that I will now deal with.
The first is that she could not understand how I could come to a different conclusion from the adjudicator who heard her previous application based on the same facts.
Plainly the facts were not the same. I was concerned primarily with events since the hearing of the previous application. The Tribunal awarded the tenant compensation on her first application and that dealt with events to that date. The previous events provided relevant background, but my focus was on the evidence relating to the time since that hearing. Therefore, the evidence was not the same.
In addition, the landlord submitted evidence that was not before the previous adjudicator. The landlord’s case was the same, namely it was the tenant who was the main problem in the neighbourhood, not the neighbour, but the landlord did not have the evidence to support that at the previous hearing.
Second, the tenant said that she was taken by surprise by the landlord’s statements produced at the original hearing. There is nothing unusual in this Tribunal about a party producing evidence on the day. There are no rules about filing evidence in advance of the hearing. In some cases that might require an adjournment in fairness to the other party but that was not the case here.
The tenant was aware of the landlord’s position from the previous hearing. She complained that she would have produced her own independent statements if she had known the landlord would do so. But she was able to do that in support of her case if. She did not need to wait for the landlord to produce statements. I note as well that she declined to question the landlord’s witness who gave live evidence at the hearing.
Third, the tenant claimed that I did not look at her evidence.
I did not look at and listen to the tenant’s video and audio evidence during the hearing. There was a very considerable amount of it, and I chose to look at it and listen to it after the hearing had finished. It is unlikely that I would have been able to get through it in the hearing time left available. The tenant had given her evidence and the purpose of considering the remaining evidence was to see whether it corroborated her evidence and if so to what extent.
I did look at and listen to all the tenant’s evidence. It was a dispiriting experience. Most of the material was pointless such as video of cars and people using the shared driveway. Much of it plainly related to the period before the previous hearing. Taken together, it did not come anywhere near to establishing the tenant’s case.
The landlord’s evidence depicted the tenant and her partner as thoroughly unpleasant people, and I can understand why the tenant is unhappy that I accepted that evidence. But I was entitled to do so.
The tenant has not made out any ground for a rehearing and so her application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721437 — Exemplary damages at Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721437 — Exemplary damages at Flat 4, 20 Wiremu Street, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions