What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4864322?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4864322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10715302-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4864322?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4864322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10715302-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Maramara Road, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4864322 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. When I called the tenant’s phone, a male said he was not the tenant and identified himself as ‘Murray Fadara’ holding a power of attorney for the tenant. Murray then confirmed he is the same person whom the Tribunal called for the last hearing.

On 12 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order to terminate this tenancy immediately and rent arrears of $21,565.48.

On 20 June 2024, Murray Wharara Ripikoi applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had been seeking advice from Hoani Waititi Marae and Waitemata Community Law Trust as to how to respond. In his written application, Mr Ripikoi stated he was not aware of the process, he did not have access to emails as he has a lack of data, and he is not aware of letters taped to the front door. He stated that he did not know he had to appear at the hearing, and he asked that it be put in writing. He also states he does not know how his contract says $111.00 for rent but he was sent a paper that says $715.00.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.

The landlord does not agree that a rehearing should be granted.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Murray Ripikoi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Firstly, I am satisfied that Mr Ripikoi was served with a copy of the notice of hearing and application, both by the Tribunal and by the landlord. At the first hearing I spoke with Mr Ripikoi and asked if he was participating in the hearing. He immediately ended the call, so the hearing proceeded in his absence. Mr Ripikoi was given fair opportunity to appear at the first hearing but chose not to take part.

Mr Ripikoi has not provided any cogent reasons as to why a rehearing should be granted. When he enquired about the amount of rent arrears, I referred him to the rent summary which has been served on him, and to the increase in rent to $712.00 per week. The arrears are significant, and Mr Ripikoi did not pay any rent from 30 December 2023 to 11 April 2024.

No new evidence has been provided. Mr Ripikoi was significantly more than 3 weeks rent in arrears when the application was filed so the Tribunal was obliged to end the tenancy (see section 55(1)(a) RTA).

While I acknowledge the very difficult position that Mr Ripikoi now finds himself, I find that he is simply seeking to delay the inevitable.

I find that this application does not raise the possibility that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or is likely to occur. Mr Ripikoi has failed to establish sufficient grounds for a rehearing therefore the application fails and is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. When I called the tenant’s phone, a male said he was not the tenant and identified himself as ‘Murray Fadara’ holding a power of attorney for the tenant. Murray then confirmed he is the same person whom the Tribunal called for the last hearing.
On 12 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order to terminate this tenancy immediately and rent arrears of $21,565.48.
On 20 June 2024, Murray Wharara Ripikoi applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had been seeking advice from Hoani Waititi Marae and Waitemata Community Law Trust as to how to respond. In his written application, Mr Ripikoi stated he was not aware of the process, he did not have access to emails as he has a lack of data, and he is not aware of letters taped to the front door. He stated that he did not know he had to appear at the hearing, and he asked that it be put in writing. He also states he does not know how his contract says $111.00 for rent but he was sent a paper that says $715.00.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
The landlord does not agree that a rehearing should be granted.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Murray Ripikoi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Firstly, I am satisfied that Mr Ripikoi was served with a copy of the notice of hearing and application, both by the Tribunal and by the landlord. At the first hearing I spoke with Mr Ripikoi and asked if he was participating in the hearing. He immediately ended the call, so the hearing proceeded in his absence. Mr Ripikoi was given fair opportunity to appear at the first hearing but chose not to take part.
Mr Ripikoi has not provided any cogent reasons as to why a rehearing should be granted. When he enquired about the amount of rent arrears, I referred him to the rent summary which has been served on him, and to the increase in rent to $712.00 per week. The arrears are significant, and Mr Ripikoi did not pay any rent from 30 December 2023 to 11 April 2024.
No new evidence has been provided. Mr Ripikoi was significantly more than 3 weeks rent in arrears when the application was filed so the Tribunal was obliged to end the tenancy (see section 55(1)(a) RTA).
While I acknowledge the very difficult position that Mr Ripikoi now finds himself, I find that he is simply seeking to delay the inevitable.
I find that this application does not raise the possibility that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or is likely to occur. Mr Ripikoi has failed to establish sufficient grounds for a rehearing therefore the application fails and is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864322 — Rent arrears at 10 Maramara Road, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864322 — Rent arrears at 10 Maramara Road, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618

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