What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796688?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4796688?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10279643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796688?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4796688?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10279643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Marie Place, Thames, Thames 3500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4796688 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.

Gary Brockett attended the hearing for the landlord by telephone.

The tenants did not answer their phone when the Tribunal called them. The hearing proceeded in their absence. On 15 March 2024, the Tribunal made orders termination the tenancy and for rent arrears.

On 22 March 2024, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds including that Ms Rutherford was not named, some rent payments had not been recorded, the landlord failed to maintain the premises, erroneously charged for water, and failed to prevent its other tenants from interfering with their reasonable peace. Legal principles

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 tenants failed to attend. The application can be dismissed for their failing to prosecute their claim with reasonable diligence.

Moreover, none of the tenants’ grounds appear to seriously call the integrity of the Tribunal’s decision into question in terms of s 105.

For instance, Ms Rutherford was a party and sent proper notice. The Tribunal decided to exclude her as a party for the tenants’ benefit. The tenants have provided no cogent evidence that the landlord did not record all the rent they paid. At the hearing, the landlord forgave $2,800.00 rent based on Mr Barbalich’s assertion at the hearing of having made those payments. The landlord has now checked his bank records and confirms the $2,800.00 was not received or had already been included.

The tenants have not brought claims for landlord breaches such as failing to maintain. They are at liberty to bring such claims, which can be decided separately to this matter. The original decision was only for rent arrears not water arrears. The water arrears are irrelevant.

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.

Gary Brockett attended the hearing for the landlord by telephone.

The tenants did not answer their phone when the Tribunal called them. The hearing proceeded in their absence. On 15 March 2024, the Tribunal made orders termination the tenancy and for rent arrears.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenants failed to attend. The application can be dismissed for their failing to prosecute their claim with reasonable diligence.

Moreover, none of the tenants’ grounds appear to seriously call the integrity of the Tribunal’s decision into question in terms of s 105.

The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796688 — Rent arrears at 106 Marie Place, Thames, Thames 3500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796688 — Rent arrears at 106 Marie Place, Thames, Thames 3500

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