What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842686?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 4842686?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842686?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842686?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842686?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 4842686?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842686?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842686?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

360D Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842686 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
The order made by the Tribunal on 30 September 2024 stands and possession is granted to the landlord at 5pm on Friday 17 January 2025.

Reasons

On 30 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing Mr Rauf’s application. The Tribunal granted possession of the premises at 360D Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 to Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For Tony Zhenran Zhang.
Ms Rauf has applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: “When the hearing took place Daisy was on the phone with the adjudicator I have no recollection of what was said about me as there were issues calling me as my phone kept rejecting the number as spam. When I finally got connected I felt the aducator (sic) was already upset with me.
Subsequently, the tenant changed her mind and sought to withdraw the notice seeking to remain at the property beyond 10 May 2024. However, the landlord refused to accept this withdrawal and applied to 4842686, 49093552 the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order following the expiration of the fixed term tenancy. Please note I handed my notice thinking I was moving and explained how the the (sic) property manager was building my hopes up saying I have the house but the owners of the house changed their minds and decided to sell. I then explained to Daisy I can't move with in 2 weeks since I have kept the house cleaned and kept all payments up to date. If I never handed in my notice I would be still here. Also there were mentions about the water bill owing of $20 this was true and there were no evidence this was owing only what Daisy said.”
The landlord opposes the rehearing application.
A hearing was held by teleconference to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the application for rehearing.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan (MA 70/02, DC Wellington, 17 June 2002) the Court considered the application of section 105(1) and stated: “[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. This implies an 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 against the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.” 4842686, 49093553

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Rauf has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Rauf’s application for rehearing primarily reflects a disagreement with the Tribunal’s findings of fact and application of the law. However, dissatisfaction with the decision does not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Ms Rauf was given ample opportunity to present evidence and respond to the landlord’s evidence during the original hearing. Despite initial difficulties reaching Ms Rauf by phone, the Tribunal ensured fairness in its process, adhering to principles of natural justice and the requirements of the Act. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal acted improperly or that the procedural process was flawed.
Ms Rauf raised concerns about the Tribunal’s conduct, alleging the Adjudicator appeared upset during the hearing. However, a review of the hearing recording does not support this claim. The Tribunal maintains informal procedures to align with its legislative purpose, and the manner of conducting proceedings is at the discretion of the Adjudicator. The Tribunal’s process does not guarantee that parties can voice every concern as they wish but ensures fairness in the overall hearing. Procedural disagreements or dissatisfaction with how proceedings were conducted do not establish a breach of the right to be heard.
Ms Rauf also contested the Tribunal’s interpretation of her intention when giving notice to terminate the tenancy, arguing that her decision was influenced by external factors, including perceived bullying and misunderstandings with the landlord. While the Tribunal acknowledges these personal circumstances, the legal framework provides that a tenant cannot unilaterally retract notice once it has been lawfully served and accepted. Allowing such retractions would undermine the certainty required in tenancy arrangements. The Tribunal considered Ms Rauf’s evidence, including prior claims regarding the landlord’s alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment, which were not upheld.
Ms Rauf’s application also sought to introduce additional evidence, yet all matters raised were already presented at the original hearing, and any new information was readily available at that time. No substantial or new evidence has been identified that could have altered the Tribunal’s decision. Personal challenges related to vacating the property, while unfortunate, do not provide grounds for a rehearing.
In conclusion, Ms Rauf has not demonstrated that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or is likely to occur. The Tribunal acted appropriately in considering the evidence and applying the law. Ms Rauf has not established grounds for a rehearing and therefore the rehearing application is 4842686, 49093554 dismissed. The stay of proceedings is lifted, and possession is granted to the landlord at 5 p.m. on Friday 17 January 2025. While the Tribunal empathises with Ms Rauf’s situation, the original decision stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
The order made by the Tribunal on 30 September 2024 stands and possession is granted to the landlord at 5pm on Friday 17 January 2025.

Reasons

On 30 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing Mr Rauf’s application. The Tribunal granted possession of the premises at 360D Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 to Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For Tony Zhenran Zhang.
Ms Rauf has applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: “When the hearing took place Daisy was on the phone with the adjudicator I have no recollection of what was said about me as there were issues calling me as my phone kept rejecting the number as spam. When I finally got connected I felt the aducator (sic) was already upset with me.
Subsequently, the tenant changed her mind and sought to withdraw the notice seeking to remain at the property beyond 10 May 2024. However, the landlord refused to accept this withdrawal and applied to 4842686, 49093552 the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order following the expiration of the fixed term tenancy. Please note I handed my notice thinking I was moving and explained how the the (sic) property manager was building my hopes up saying I have the house but the owners of the house changed their minds and decided to sell. I then explained to Daisy I can't move with in 2 weeks since I have kept the house cleaned and kept all payments up to date. If I never handed in my notice I would be still here. Also there were mentions about the water bill owing of $20 this was true and there were no evidence this was owing only what Daisy said.”
The landlord opposes the rehearing application.
A hearing was held by teleconference to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the application for rehearing.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan (MA 70/02, DC Wellington, 17 June 2002) the Court considered the application of section 105(1) and stated: “[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. This implies an 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 against the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.” 4842686, 49093553

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Rauf has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Rauf’s application for rehearing primarily reflects a disagreement with the Tribunal’s findings of fact and application of the law. However, dissatisfaction with the decision does not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Ms Rauf was given ample opportunity to present evidence and respond to the landlord’s evidence during the original hearing. Despite initial difficulties reaching Ms Rauf by phone, the Tribunal ensured fairness in its process, adhering to principles of natural justice and the requirements of the Act. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal acted improperly or that the procedural process was flawed.
Ms Rauf raised concerns about the Tribunal’s conduct, alleging the Adjudicator appeared upset during the hearing. However, a review of the hearing recording does not support this claim. The Tribunal maintains informal procedures to align with its legislative purpose, and the manner of conducting proceedings is at the discretion of the Adjudicator. The Tribunal’s process does not guarantee that parties can voice every concern as they wish but ensures fairness in the overall hearing. Procedural disagreements or dissatisfaction with how proceedings were conducted do not establish a breach of the right to be heard.
Ms Rauf also contested the Tribunal’s interpretation of her intention when giving notice to terminate the tenancy, arguing that her decision was influenced by external factors, including perceived bullying and misunderstandings with the landlord. While the Tribunal acknowledges these personal circumstances, the legal framework provides that a tenant cannot unilaterally retract notice once it has been lawfully served and accepted. Allowing such retractions would undermine the certainty required in tenancy arrangements. The Tribunal considered Ms Rauf’s evidence, including prior claims regarding the landlord’s alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment, which were not upheld.
Ms Rauf’s application also sought to introduce additional evidence, yet all matters raised were already presented at the original hearing, and any new information was readily available at that time. No substantial or new evidence has been identified that could have altered the Tribunal’s decision. Personal challenges related to vacating the property, while unfortunate, do not provide grounds for a rehearing.
In conclusion, Ms Rauf has not demonstrated that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or is likely to occur. The Tribunal acted appropriately in considering the evidence and applying the law. Ms Rauf has not established grounds for a rehearing and therefore the rehearing application is 4842686, 49093554 dismissed. The stay of proceedings is lifted, and possession is granted to the landlord at 5 p.m. on Friday 17 January 2025. While the Tribunal empathises with Ms Rauf’s situation, the original decision stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842686 — Tenancy dispute at 360D Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842686 — Tenancy dispute at 360D Kohimarama Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions