What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4754256?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4754256?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4754256?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4754256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039933-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4754256?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4754256?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4754256?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4754256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039933-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 305, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4754256 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing Consideration Hearing. The tenant was supported by Mr Henry.

On 22 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and damages.

On 23 February 2024 Hayley Hendriks applied for a rehearing on the grounds that her service details had not been updated by the landlord and she hadn’t received notice of 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. 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 Hayley Hendriks has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Services served notice of the hearing and information about the hearing on Ms Hendriks by way of email and post. An SMS message was also sent to the mobile number that Tenancy Services had for Ms Hendriks reminding her of the hearing date.

The property manager for her flat also says he placed a copy of the notice for the hearing on her door, and photographed it on the day before the hearing. A copy of this information was provided to the Tribunal.

Ms Hendriks stated she had changed her email address and mobile telephone number some time before the hearing and advised “Alfredo”, a property manager she liaised with on a regular basis, but he hadn’t updated her details in the data base. This meant she never received the emails and SMS messages from her landlord.

Ms Hendriks stated that she received the letter from Tenancy Services in the mail, but she was very stressed at the time as her mother was suffering from a serious illness and she didn’t open or read the letter(s).

Ms Hendriks didn’t address the letter that was stuck to the door of her flat by the property manager on the day before the hearing, but if that had been the only notice she received I would accept that it didn’t provide sufficient time for her to respond to the application.

Ms Hendriks did receive the termination notice that was stuck to her door following the hearing on 22 February 2024 and as already stated, she filed an application for a rehearing the very next day.

I have sympathy for the predicament that Ms Hendriks has been in, and I accept that she did not know the details regarding the hearing. However this is partly of her making as she did receive notification of the hearing via post.

Service via post is service under 91A(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As such it is my unavoidable conclusion that Ms Hendriks did receive notice of the hearing and she cannot stand behind the fact that she chose to not open her mail to claim that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing Consideration Hearing. The tenant was supported by Mr Henry.
On 22 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and damages.
On 23 February 2024 Hayley Hendriks applied for a rehearing on the grounds that her service details had not been updated by the landlord and she hadn’t received notice of 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. 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 Hayley Hendriks has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Tenancy Services served notice of the hearing and information about the hearing on Ms Hendriks by way of email and post. An SMS message was also sent to the mobile number that Tenancy Services had for Ms Hendriks reminding her of the hearing date.
The property manager for her flat also says he placed a copy of the notice for the hearing on her door, and photographed it on the day before the hearing. A copy of this information was provided to the Tribunal.
Ms Hendriks stated she had changed her email address and mobile telephone number some time before the hearing and advised “Alfredo”, a property manager she liaised with on a regular basis, but he hadn’t updated her details in the data base. This meant she never received the emails and SMS messages from her landlord.
Ms Hendriks stated that she received the letter from Tenancy Services in the mail, but she was very stressed at the time as her mother was suffering from a serious illness and she didn’t open or read the letter(s).
Ms Hendriks didn’t address the letter that was stuck to the door of her flat by the property manager on the day before the hearing, but if that had been the only notice she received I would accept that it didn’t provide sufficient time for her to respond to the application.
Ms Hendriks did receive the termination notice that was stuck to her door following the hearing on 22 February 2024 and as already stated, she filed an application for a rehearing the very next day.
I have sympathy for the predicament that Ms Hendriks has been in, and I accept that she did not know the details regarding the hearing. However this is partly of her making as she did receive notification of the hearing via post.
Service via post is service under 91A(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As such it is my unavoidable conclusion that Ms Hendriks did receive notice of the hearing and she cannot stand behind the fact that she chose to not open her mail to claim that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4754256 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 305, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4754256 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 305, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions