What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826174 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 4826174?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826174?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10891729-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826174 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 4826174?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826174?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10891729-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826174 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The rehearing application is declined. The order of the 8 July stands and may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
On 8 July 2024 following a full day hearing in the Huntly District Court the Tribunal made an order in favour of the tenants whereby the landlord had to pay the tenant’s $3620.44 and dismissed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.
On 9 July 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. That she has new evidence (recovered documents from her laptop) which were not available at the hearing and rent statements would allow the Tribunal to determine the rent arrears owing. The applicant claims that if the Tribunal did not give consideration to these documents there would be a miscarriage of justice. b. That she was stressed on the day of the hearing and that she was unable to present her case in the best way. c. That the presence of the tenant’s support person was triggering to her and made her further stressed and unable to present her case properly at the hearing.
At the rehearing hearing on the 26 September the landlord (applicant) said that she had suffered a power cut and had to relocate to another place to take the phone call. She said that as a result of that she did not have access to her laptop and did not have the documents she had submitted in front of her.
During the hearing the applicant’s phone cut out a number of times. On all occasions I rang the applicant back.
The respondent (tenant) attended the hearing by telephone as well along with her support person.
At the hearing the landlord advised that she wanted me to determine the matter on the evidence and submissions provided.
It became clear during the hearing that the landlord had not had access to the documents filed by the tenant in response to the landlord’s application for rehearing. Accordingly, I asked the Registry to send the landlord those documents and gave the landlord 3 days to file and written submission. The landlord has now responded to those submissions in writing.
The tenant’s submissions are: a. That the landlord’s evidence is not new or was not readily available at the time of the hearing. The landlord could have completed a new rent summary from her bank accounts, and it is the landlord’s obligation to keep records to allow her to do this. b. That in any case the tenant’s own rent summary shows that no rent is owing. The law.
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”.
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. 1 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 applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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 (own emphasis). In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044- 2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC. In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
The High Court has confirmed that it is not a miscarriage of justice to decline rehearing just because evidence was not considered at original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at original hearing. 2 Decision
Having carefully considered all the evidence and submissions I decline to grant a rehearing for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s rent summary is not new evidence, the landlord was aware that the hearing was taking place and should have prepared for the hearing by completing a rent summary from bank statements. This requirement is stated in the tenancy application which states: You must attach a rent summary that clearly shows: the rental history of the tenancy from the start of the tenancy when the rent was due when the rent was paid or not paid a running total of the arrears a running total of the arrears. For guidance about how to complete a rent summary, go to www.tenancy.govt.nz b. The landlord advised that her laptop broke on or about December 2023 or January 2024, the landlord filed her application on 3 March 2024. That rent statement produced at the hearing on the 5 July did not cover the whole of the tenancy and claims that the tenant owes rent of $5980. In the rent summary that the landlord has submitted as part of the rehearing application which the landlord says is for the full tenancy, it has the total rent owing of $40,640 and the rent arrears of $3392. (It is noted that the rent statement does not reflect the determinations that I have made in my decision of 8 July such as rent being $420 from 1 November) 3 In the landlord’s submissions of today’s date the landlord says: The tenancy duration was from 9 April 2021 until 2 Feb 2024 a period of 147 weeks 83 weeks of that the rent was $440 37weeks rent was $460 26 weeks 5days at $420........all up a total of $64000 2 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 3 See paragraphs 19 and 20 of my decision of the 8 July 2024. The total amount of rent received was $51500 according to the deposits made in my rent book. Tenants one shows a total of $52486 I haven’t gone through the bank statements provided in this document as it is simply too confusing in that format. Both rent books however show a total balance of rent paid to be considerably less than the amount that should of been paid . These figures are different again and by the landlord’s own submission she has not reconciled the bank statements with her statements. c. The landlord’s new evidence, being the rent summary for the full period, cannot be relied on as it does not reflect the determinations I have made in my decision of the 8 July 2024, and is different to that given by the tenants. There is no explanation for the discrepancies between the amount that the tenants say have been paid and those recorded by the landlord. d. In any case, putting to one side the accuracies of the rent statement I do not consider this evidence to be new. The landlord should have produced rent summary from their bank statements before the hearing. All landlords have an obligation to keep records of the rent that is paid, that would be sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3). These records must be kept for 7 years. 4 The landlord had an obligation to recover any rent statements or alternatively re calculate them from her bank statements before the hearing. e. This matter was given a whole day hearing at the Huntly Court. The parties were given sufficient notice (almost a month) and time to prepare for the hearing. f.The tenant was entitled to bring a support person to the hearing. The support person did not seek to interrupt or interject in the proceedings she was there to offer support to the tenant. g. The landlord told me at the hearing about her power outage and stresses that she had before getting to the hearing. Whilst I do not doubt that these events were somewhat stressful for the landlord, I do not consider that they impacted on the way the landlord was able to conduct herself at hearing. She was able to answer questions and speak to me about the claims that had been made.
The Application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826174 — Rent arrears at 35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826174 — Rent arrears at 35C River Road, Ngaruawahia, Ngaruawahia 3720

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions