What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4860708?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4860708?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860708?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10836570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4860708?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4860708?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860708?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10836570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860708 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone. Mr and Mrs Shannon attended for the landlord company.
The Tribunal is required to decide whether the tenant has established grounds for a rehearing of the applications in respect of which an order was made on 12 August 2024. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s application and made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $2,496.68 for rent arrears and end of tenancy costs. The application
The tenant says that the Tribunal: •Failed to disclose evidence the landlord presented at the hearing •Wrongly dismissed her evidence •Failed to take her hardship into account •She has new evidence
The tenant also states that she failed to understand everything and had difficulty hearing.
At the outset I note that this was and remains a contentious case. Both parties allege that the other party lied to the Tribunal and that each has harassed the other. Law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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?

Failure to disclose evidence presented at the hearing

The landlord provided 2 brief written statements which they referred to at the hearing. The statements were of background relevance only. They were not determinative in any way.
The Tribunal is a lay Tribunal. Parties often present evidence on the day not previously produced. If it is of relevance to the decision the Tribunal will make sure the other party sees it and has the opportunity to respond. But the Tribunal receives a lot of evidence in a case such as this. Not all the evidence is relevant. The tenant raised no concerns during the hearing about non- disclosure. She has not established any procedural error since the evidence she refers to did not inform the decision made. Wrongful dismissal of evidence
The Tribunal did not dismiss any of the tenant’s evidence. She provided the Tribunal (and has continued to do so) with numerous documents. The Tribunal is not required to refer to each piece of evidence produced. It considers the evidence overall and decides the applications based on the evidence and the parties’ submissions. Failure to consider hardship
This issue is relevant to the tenant’s application to have the term of her fixed term tenancy reduced. The Tribunal did not have to consider the parties’ respective hardship because the tenant’s application did not pass the first hurdle of the statutory test as I explained in the decision; there was no unforeseen change of circumstances. New evidence
The tenant said she has new evidence to produce – more videos and witness statements. She has not persuaded the Tribunal that this evidence could not have been provided at the time of the hearing, nor that it would alter the outcome in a material way. Failure to understand and hear
I was careful to ensure that the tenant understood the proceedings and that both parties were able to fully participate. Initially, the hearing was set for a phone hearing in Ashburton. I transferred the hearing to Christchurch to be heard in person. It was the landlord who said they had some initial problems understanding the tenant.
I was satisfied that the tenant understood and fully participated in the hearing. Indeed, she did so with vigour. Although English is not her first language, I found her to have a high level of English comprehension. That is reflected in the numerous submissions she has made to the Tribunal in writing.
I do not accept that the tenant struggled in any way. I was finely attuned to the parties’ presentations. If anything, it was the landlord party that struggled to understand the tenant. The Tribunal had no issues understanding her and neither did it detect any issues for her. Result
The tenant has not established any grounds for a rehearing. Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. The hearing lasted between 9.30am and
30pm with a 20-minute break in the middle. Both parties had the opportunity to present their cases.
Essentially, the tenant is unhappy with the outcome. That is a ground for an appeal, not for a rehearing.
Having heard the parties submissions today at the rehearing hearing the Tribunal stands by its conclusions set out at paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision. The tenant wanted to leave the tenancy because the landlord would not agree to her having a second dog. Having made that decision she then made these allegations against the landlord (one of which I described as fanciful) to justify ending the tenancy.
The tenant has failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The issues she has raised are ones for argument on appeal. Her application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone. Mr and Mrs Shannon attended for the landlord company.
The Tribunal is required to decide whether the tenant has established grounds for a rehearing of the applications in respect of which an order was made on 12 August 2024. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s application and made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $2,496.68 for rent arrears and end of tenancy costs. The application
The tenant says that the Tribunal: •Failed to disclose evidence the landlord presented at the hearing •Wrongly dismissed her evidence •Failed to take her hardship into account •She has new evidence
The tenant also states that she failed to understand everything and had difficulty hearing.
At the outset I note that this was and remains a contentious case. Both parties allege that the other party lied to the Tribunal and that each has harassed the other. Law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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?

Failure to disclose evidence presented at the hearing

The landlord provided 2 brief written statements which they referred to at the hearing. The statements were of background relevance only. They were not determinative in any way.
The Tribunal is a lay Tribunal. Parties often present evidence on the day not previously produced. If it is of relevance to the decision the Tribunal will make sure the other party sees it and has the opportunity to respond. But the Tribunal receives a lot of evidence in a case such as this. Not all the evidence is relevant. The tenant raised no concerns during the hearing about non- disclosure. She has not established any procedural error since the evidence she refers to did not inform the decision made. Wrongful dismissal of evidence
The Tribunal did not dismiss any of the tenant’s evidence. She provided the Tribunal (and has continued to do so) with numerous documents. The Tribunal is not required to refer to each piece of evidence produced. It considers the evidence overall and decides the applications based on the evidence and the parties’ submissions. Failure to consider hardship
This issue is relevant to the tenant’s application to have the term of her fixed term tenancy reduced. The Tribunal did not have to consider the parties’ respective hardship because the tenant’s application did not pass the first hurdle of the statutory test as I explained in the decision; there was no unforeseen change of circumstances. New evidence
The tenant said she has new evidence to produce – more videos and witness statements. She has not persuaded the Tribunal that this evidence could not have been provided at the time of the hearing, nor that it would alter the outcome in a material way. Failure to understand and hear
I was careful to ensure that the tenant understood the proceedings and that both parties were able to fully participate. Initially, the hearing was set for a phone hearing in Ashburton. I transferred the hearing to Christchurch to be heard in person. It was the landlord who said they had some initial problems understanding the tenant.
I was satisfied that the tenant understood and fully participated in the hearing. Indeed, she did so with vigour. Although English is not her first language, I found her to have a high level of English comprehension. That is reflected in the numerous submissions she has made to the Tribunal in writing.
I do not accept that the tenant struggled in any way. I was finely attuned to the parties’ presentations. If anything, it was the landlord party that struggled to understand the tenant. The Tribunal had no issues understanding her and neither did it detect any issues for her. Result
The tenant has not established any grounds for a rehearing. Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. The hearing lasted between 9.30am and
30pm with a 20-minute break in the middle. Both parties had the opportunity to present their cases.
Essentially, the tenant is unhappy with the outcome. That is a ground for an appeal, not for a rehearing.
Having heard the parties submissions today at the rehearing hearing the Tribunal stands by its conclusions set out at paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision. The tenant wanted to leave the tenancy because the landlord would not agree to her having a second dog. Having made that decision she then made these allegations against the landlord (one of which I described as fanciful) to justify ending the tenancy.
The tenant has failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The issues she has raised are ones for argument on appeal. Her application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860708 — Rent arrears at 144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860708 — Rent arrears at 144 Michael Street, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

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