What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4759080 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4759080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10547882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4759080 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4759080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759080?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10547882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4759080 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 22 April 2024, I made an order that [The tenant/s] was to pay Far North Real Estate (2010) Ltd $757.15. The reasons for the order are set out in my decision.
On 6 May 2024, [The tenant/s] filed an application for a re-hearing.
An application hearing took place by phone on 18 June 2024. [The tenant’s representative] represented [The tenant/s]. Ms Ponsonby represented the landlord.
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.
The first hearing took place in the [Event location suppressed] on 5 February 2024. [The tenant/s] was assisted by [The tenant’s representative] at that hearing and also had legal representation.
The hearing was adjourned for the reasons set out in my adjournment order dated 7 February 2024.
The second hearing took place on 25 March 2024. Both parties participated in that hearing.
My reserve decision was released on 22 April 2024.
[The tenant/s] provided a detailed and comprehensive written submission in support of the re-hearing application.
The application does not raise any issues that relate to procedural unfairness.
Most of the points in the written submission are further arguments about the disputed issues that were addressed in the decision. Some of the arguments are tenable. Some, such as [The tenant]’s continued assertion that “section 59 [of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986] says that only a city council, civil defense department, health department and fire department can qualify a house uninhabitable” are simply incorrect.
In any event, having further arguments to present does not provide grounds for a re-hearing. The parties had many months to prepare and present evidence and argument at the two hearings.
The evidence provided in support of the application includes only one piece of evidence that is ‘new’ in the sense of not being reasonably available at the time of the original hearings.
That is a screen shot of a brief text message exchange between [The tenant’s representative] and his sister, who is a property manager with [a property management company]. In that exchange [The tenant’s representative]’s sister states “I’ve never been the property manager of any of these properties and no I don’t know of any septic repairs I’ve only known about the pipes upstairs that were damaged when the rats got in”.
[The tenant/s] wishes to introduce this text message as evidence that [property management company] was aware of previous “non-related” septic repairs.
The evidence is not persuasive. Ms Ponsonby submitted that what is referred to in the message was a rat chewing a hole in a water pipe in the house. There is no arguable way that such damage could be related to the septic failure that occurred during [The tenant]’s tenancy. [The tenant’s representative] may have his doubts about the veracity of that, but he does not have any evidence to disprove it.
In summary: a. There was no procedural unfairness in the way that the hearings were conducted. b. Disagreeing the decision, or wanting the opportunity to introduce new arguments, does not provide grounds for a re-hearing. c. The one piece of new evidence provided by the applicant would not have had a bearing on the outcome if it had been submitted when the original hearings took place. d. It is not proven that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. e. The application for a re-hearing is dismissed.
I granted name suppression to the tenant in the original order. Name suppression also applies to this order.

Reasons

On 22 April 2024, I made an order that [The tenant/s] was to pay Far North Real Estate (2010) Ltd $757.15. The reasons for the order are set out in my decision.

On 6 May 2024, [The tenant/s] filed an application for a re-hearing.

An application hearing took place by phone on 18 June 2024. [The tenant’s representative] represented [The tenant/s]. Ms Ponsonby represented the landlord.

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.

The first hearing took place in the [Event location suppressed] on 5 February 2024. [The tenant/s] was assisted by [The tenant’s representative] at that hearing and also had legal representation.

The hearing was adjourned for the reasons set out in my adjournment order dated 7 February 2024.

The second hearing took place on 25 March 2024. Both parties participated in that hearing.

My reserve decision was released on 22 April 2024.

[The tenant/s] provided a detailed and comprehensive written submission in support of the re-hearing application.

The application does not raise any issues that relate to procedural unfairness.

Most of the points in the written submission are further arguments about the disputed issues that were addressed in the decision. Some of the arguments are tenable. Some, such as [The tenant]’s continued assertion that “section 59 [of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986] says that only a city council, civil defense department, health department and fire department can qualify a house uninhabitable” are simply incorrect.

In any event, having further arguments to present does not provide grounds for a re-hearing. The parties had many months to prepare and present evidence and argument at the two hearings.

The evidence provided in support of the application includes only one piece of evidence that is ‘new’ in the sense of not being reasonably available at the time of the original hearings.

That is a screen shot of a brief text message exchange between [The tenant’s representative] and his sister, who is a property manager with [a property management company]. In that exchange [The tenant’s representative]’s sister states “I’ve never been the property manager of any of these properties and no I don’t know of any septic repairs I’ve only known about the pipes upstairs that were damaged when the rats got in”.

[The tenant/s] wishes to introduce this text message as evidence that [property management company] was aware of previous “non-related” septic repairs.

The evidence is not persuasive. Ms Ponsonby submitted that what is referred to in the message was a rat chewing a hole in a water pipe in the house. There is no arguable way that such damage could be related to the septic failure that occurred during [The tenant]’s tenancy. [The tenant’s representative] may have his doubts about the veracity of that, but he does not have any evidence to disprove it.

In summary: a. There was no procedural unfairness in the way that the hearings were conducted. b. Disagreeing the decision, or wanting the opportunity to introduce new arguments, does not provide grounds for a re-hearing. c. The one piece of new evidence provided by the applicant would not have had a bearing on the outcome if it had been submitted when the original hearings took place. d. It is not proven that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. e. The application for a re-hearing is dismissed.

I granted name suppression to the tenant in the original order. Name suppression also applies to this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759080 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759080 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions