What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760277 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4760277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760277?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10349045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760277 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4760277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760277?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10349045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Kingsview Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760277 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 12 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord Li Mei Na to pay compensation of $4,535.44 to [The tenant/s].
On 15 April 2024 Li Mei Na applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenant misled the Tribunal, and the property is in reasonable condition for renting; and b. facilities in the property are working well, not damaged or unusable as the tenant claimed; and c. a letter from the current tenant as evidence that all the facilities at the property were working well was not considered by the Tribunal.
During the Rehearing Consideration Hearing, Li Mei Na’s representative Bin Wang added to the above-mentioned grounds. Mr Wang stated: d. He considered that [The tenant/s] had lied during the first hearing; and e. [The tenant/s] hadn’t presented any physical evidence in support of his claims during the first hearing; and f. he would like an opportunity to call the current tenant of the property that [The tenant/s] had rented, as a witness to provide evidence including photographs and videos to show the property is in good condition, and also to call his accountant as a witness to provide evidence that no maintenance had been undertaken on the property since [The tenant/s] had left the property; and g. the quantum awarded to [The tenant/s] is not in line with what the Tribunal has awarded in other decisions.
In response [The tenant/s] opposed a rehearing on the following grounds: a. At the first hearing Mr Wang chose not to present the evidence he is raising today, and which was available to him on that occasion. Instead Mr Wang closed his case more than an hour before the end of the scheduled time. Whereas Mr Wang has said he has 10 rental properties and regularly attends the Tenancy Tribunal, [The tenant/s] submitted he is a school teacher who cannot afford to keep taking time off work to attend hearings; and b. all of the evidence that Mr Wang sought to produce at the first hearing, including the letter from the current tenant, even though it was first provided to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, and no copy was provided by the landlord to [The tenant/s]; and c. Mr Wang repeatedly called him ([The tenant/s]) a liar but has not provided any information in support of this allegation. The text and email communications that [The tenant/s] sent to the landlord about the state of the property during the tenancy were responded to by the landlord as if the landlord was going to address the problems. If the landlord thought [The tenant/s] was lying about the problems, why wasn’t this raised at that time?
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 Li Mei Na has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Both parties attended the hearing and were heard in full. No information from either party was excluded at that hearing. b. It is not unusual for parties in a dispute to disagree over the “facts”; the purpose of a hearing includes allowing an impartial adjudicator to hear the information from both sides, and to make a finding on the disputed facts. At the first hearing both parties had an equal opportunity to present the facts as they believed them to be. Because this is the case, I do not consider the fact that the landlord disagrees with [The tenant/s]’s information to indicate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. c. At the first hearing, Mr Wang produced the letter he refers to from the current tenant of the property [The tenant/s] rented, and I considered this information as part of Mr Wang’s submissions. I referred to this letter at paragraph 20 of my decision on that day. It is incorrect of the landlord to say that this information was not considered by the Tribunal. d. The landlord was not deprived of an opportunity to call his witnesses at the first hearing. e. The landlord’s view that the quantum awarded to [The tenant/s] is not in line with other awards made by the Tenancy Tribunal is not grounds for a hearing.
The landlord has not shown that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 12 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord Li Mei Na to pay compensation of $4,535.44 to [The tenant/s].

On 15 April 2024 Li Mei Na applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenant misled the Tribunal, and the property is in reasonable condition for renting; and b. facilities in the property are working well, not damaged or unusable as the tenant claimed; and c. a letter from the current tenant as evidence that all the facilities at the property were working well was not considered by the Tribunal.

During the Rehearing Consideration Hearing, Li Mei Na’s representative Bin Wang added to the above-mentioned grounds. Mr Wang stated: d. He considered that [The tenant/s] had lied during the first hearing; and e. [The tenant/s] hadn’t presented any physical evidence in support of his claims during the first hearing; and f. he would like an opportunity to call the current tenant of the property that [The tenant/s] had rented, as a witness to provide evidence including photographs and videos to show the property is in good condition, and also to call his accountant as a witness to provide evidence that no maintenance had been undertaken on the property since [The tenant/s] had left the property; and g. the quantum awarded to [The tenant/s] is not in line with what the Tribunal has awarded in other decisions.

In response [The tenant/s] opposed a rehearing on the following grounds: a. At the first hearing Mr Wang chose not to present the evidence he is raising today, and which was available to him on that occasion. Instead Mr Wang closed his case more than an hour before the end of the scheduled time. Whereas Mr Wang has said he has 10 rental properties and regularly attends the Tenancy Tribunal, [The tenant/s] submitted he is a school teacher who cannot afford to keep taking time off work to attend hearings; and b. all of the evidence that Mr Wang sought to produce at the first hearing, including the letter from the current tenant, even though it was first provided to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, and no copy was provided by the landlord to [The tenant/s]; and c. Mr Wang repeatedly called him ([The tenant/s]) a liar but has not provided any information in support of this allegation. The text and email communications that [The tenant/s] sent to the landlord about the state of the property during the tenancy were responded to by the landlord as if the landlord was going to address the problems. If the landlord thought [The tenant/s] was lying about the problems, why wasn’t this raised at that time?

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 Li Mei Na has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Both parties attended the hearing and were heard in full. No information from either party was excluded at that hearing. b. It is not unusual for parties in a dispute to disagree over the “facts”; the purpose of a hearing includes allowing an impartial adjudicator to hear the information from both sides, and to make a finding on the disputed facts. At the first hearing both parties had an equal opportunity to present the facts as they believed them to be. Because this is the case, I do not consider the fact that the landlord disagrees with [The tenant/s]’s information to indicate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. c. At the first hearing, Mr Wang produced the letter he refers to from the current tenant of the property [The tenant/s] rented, and I considered this information as part of Mr Wang’s submissions. I referred to this letter at paragraph 20 of my decision on that day. It is incorrect of the landlord to say that this information was not considered by the Tribunal. d. The landlord was not deprived of an opportunity to call his witnesses at the first hearing. e. The landlord’s view that the quantum awarded to [The tenant/s] is not in line with other awards made by the Tenancy Tribunal is not grounds for a hearing.

The landlord has not shown that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760277 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Kingsview Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760277 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Kingsview Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

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