What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776957 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4776957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776957?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202359-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776957 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4776957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776957?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202359-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36A Beach Road, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776957 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 20 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining the parties’ cross claims concerning the tenancy.
On 26 February 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. the award of exemplary damages against the tenant for failing to allow the landlord entry to the premises was unjust and showed bias toward the landlord, b.It was unjust to award to the landlord rent for 9 and 10 February 2024 was unjust.
Additional grounds were advanced at the hearing.
The landlord’s position is that it opposes the granting of a rehearing but if a rehearing is granted it must, in fairness, be a rehearing of all matters, it not just of the findings made against the tenant.
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?

The tenant’s submissions essentially amounted to an assertion that the Tribunal’s decision was wrong in respect of the findings made against her.
The tenant is of course perfectly entitled to that view, but it does not provide a basis for ordering a rehearing.
I am satisfied that the evidence highlighted by the tenant in her submissions was presented at the hearing and taken into account in the decision, though not perhaps given the weight that the tenant thought appropriate.
The tenant says that new evidence is also available which, had it been available at the hearing, may have affected the outcome.
That evidence was provided by the tenant and I have considered it.
There is additional evidence in the form of communications around the landlord’s wish to have the gutters at the property cleaned. There is no apparent reason why such evidence cold not have been provided for the hearing. Most fundamentally, that additional evidence does not significantly change the view I took of the relevant facts that led to the Orders made.
I am satisfied that the evidence highlighted in the tenant’s submission concerning the rent for 9 and 10 February 2024 was presented at the hearing and taken into account in the Order. New evidence was presented concerning the tenants actual moving arrangements. I am satisfied that had the evidence been presented at the hearing it is unlikely to have affected the termination date finding which was based on the date given in the tenant’s notice.
The tenant has also queried the Order that water charges of $31.64 be paid.
The Tribunal understood there was no dispute that final water rates were due from the tenant following termination of the tenancy.
An Order was made on 8 February 2024 allowing the landlord entry to inspect the premises and advise if any end of tenancy bond claims would be brought.
After that entry and inspection, the landlord advised that there were no such claims to be brought except for water rates following the final reading.
I took that evidence at face value and made final Orders accordingly in the 20 February Order.
The tenant is correct that the Order for payment of final water rates of $31.64 was made without her being heard. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the landlord’s reading was incorrect. In my view, any prejudice caused to the tenant is not sufficient, in the context of the parties’ competing claims, to constitute a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice such as to warrant a rehearing being ordered.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 20 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining the parties’ cross claims concerning the tenancy.
On 26 February 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. the award of exemplary damages against the tenant for failing to allow the landlord entry to the premises was unjust and showed bias toward the landlord, b.It was unjust to award to the landlord rent for 9 and 10 February 2024 was unjust.
Additional grounds were advanced at the hearing.
The landlord’s position is that it opposes the granting of a rehearing but if a rehearing is granted it must, in fairness, be a rehearing of all matters, it not just of the findings made against the tenant.
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?

The tenant’s submissions essentially amounted to an assertion that the Tribunal’s decision was wrong in respect of the findings made against her.
The tenant is of course perfectly entitled to that view, but it does not provide a basis for ordering a rehearing.
I am satisfied that the evidence highlighted by the tenant in her submissions was presented at the hearing and taken into account in the decision, though not perhaps given the weight that the tenant thought appropriate.
The tenant says that new evidence is also available which, had it been available at the hearing, may have affected the outcome.
That evidence was provided by the tenant and I have considered it.
There is additional evidence in the form of communications around the landlord’s wish to have the gutters at the property cleaned. There is no apparent reason why such evidence cold not have been provided for the hearing. Most fundamentally, that additional evidence does not significantly change the view I took of the relevant facts that led to the Orders made.
I am satisfied that the evidence highlighted in the tenant’s submission concerning the rent for 9 and 10 February 2024 was presented at the hearing and taken into account in the Order. New evidence was presented concerning the tenants actual moving arrangements. I am satisfied that had the evidence been presented at the hearing it is unlikely to have affected the termination date finding which was based on the date given in the tenant’s notice.
The tenant has also queried the Order that water charges of $31.64 be paid.
The Tribunal understood there was no dispute that final water rates were due from the tenant following termination of the tenancy.
An Order was made on 8 February 2024 allowing the landlord entry to inspect the premises and advise if any end of tenancy bond claims would be brought.
After that entry and inspection, the landlord advised that there were no such claims to be brought except for water rates following the final reading.
I took that evidence at face value and made final Orders accordingly in the 20 February Order.
The tenant is correct that the Order for payment of final water rates of $31.64 was made without her being heard. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the landlord’s reading was incorrect. In my view, any prejudice caused to the tenant is not sufficient, in the context of the parties’ competing claims, to constitute a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice such as to warrant a rehearing being ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776957 — Exemplary damages at 36A Beach Road, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776957 — Exemplary damages at 36A Beach Road, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions