What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857122?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4857122?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857122?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11061645-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857122?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4857122?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857122?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11061645-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 203, 3 Tasman Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4857122 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of an Assyrian interpreter.

On 3 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy.

On 10 September 2024, Amir Smslon Benyamin applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he is unwell, and he referred to a letter from his doctor which was not available at the earlier hearing. He also referred to not being happy with the court interpreter at the hearing and that he was not happy with the Tribunal’s decision.

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 Amir Smslon Benyamin has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant said that the doctor’s letter dated 22 August 2024 was not available for the hearing held on 3 September 2024. While it is not clear why the letter was not available given it is dated earlier than the hearing, the letter does not provide any valid ground for rehearing. In the letter the doctor asks to take account of the tenant’s health needs with regards to his housing situation.

The tenancy was terminated pursuant to section 55(1)(a)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section does not allow for consideration of the effect of termination on the tenant.

While the tenant submitted in the application for rehearing that the interpreter provided at the earlier hearing did not interpret his words very well, this issue was not raised at the hearing held on 11 November 2024. I provided the tenant with an opportunity to address me about his application for rehearing, but he did not mention any issue with the interpreting.

The tenant referred to video evidence on a USB stick which he said shows the condition of the premises and draughts that are present. As the evidence is not in relation to the order made on 3 September 2024 or the application for rehearing it was not viewed or accepted as evidence by the Tribunal.

After asking the tenant for submissions in support of his application for a rehearing the tenant responded in relation to wanting evidence from the landlord that the premises is a healthy home. This is not an issue relevant to the rehearing application.

The rehearing application is dismissed and the order made on 3 September 2024 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of an Assyrian interpreter.

On 3 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Amir Smslon Benyamin has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The tenancy was terminated pursuant to section 55(1)(a)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section does not allow for consideration of the effect of termination on the tenant.

The rehearing application is dismissed and the order made on 3 September 2024 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857122 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 203, 3 Tasman Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857122 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 203, 3 Tasman Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

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