What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892524?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4892524?

The reconciled net award was $15.71.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892524?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795749-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892524?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4892524?

The reconciled net award was $15.71.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892524?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795749-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 28 Ladies Mile, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892524 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The tenancy of Shaun Cobb at Unit/Flat 7, 28 Ladies Mile, Remuera, Auckland 1050 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mog Limited T/As Angel Property Managers As Agent For The Chen Family Trust, at 11:59pm, Saturday 7 September 2024.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $36.15 being the outstanding balance of the arrears awarded pursuant to the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858, dated 12 Apr 2024.
The tenant is to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee for this application, being $20.44.
The total award is set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing. Procedural background
On 1 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Cobb’s tenancy and granting the landlord possession at 11:59pm on Saturday 3 August 2024.
On 2 August 2024, Mr Cobb applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had misspelled the email address to which he sent photos of the condition of the property as at 31 July 2024. He had attempted to email the photos on 31 July 2024, as directed during the hearing. The photographs taken on 31 July 2024 were supplied with Mr Cobb’s application for re-hearing filed on 2 August 2024.
On 2 August 2024, pending consideration of the application for re-hearing, a stay of proceedings of the decision dated 1 August 2024 was granted. Grounds for granting a re-hearing
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 a party 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 Mr Cobb has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In the original decision, I found Mr Cobb had failed to comply with the landlord’s notice to remedy a breach, being a failure to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The notice was issued on 20 May 2024 and gave Mr Cobb 14 days to remedy the breach.
The evidence at the hearing was that at a subsequent inspection on 10 June 2024, and a further inspection on 3 July 2024, the premises were still not in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The new evidence which Mr Cobb attempted to file on 31 July 2024, and which was received as part of this application for re-hearing, is, Mr Cobb says, evidence that the premises had been brought up to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition as at 31 July 2024.
The landlord’s agent says the photos take on 31 July 2024 do not show the entirety of the premises and shows only portions of the rooms photographed.
While I accept that the photographs were not available before my original decision was issued on 1 August 2024, it would not have affected the outcome.
Mr Cobb had been issued a notice to remedy the breach within 14 days of 20 May 2024. That notice period expired on 3 June 2024. The evidence was that on 10 June 2024 and 3 July 2024 the property was still not in a reasonably tidy and reasonably clean condition. Those inspections were 21 days after the notice for the 10 June 2024 inspection was issued, and 44 days after the notice was issued for the 3 July 2024 inspection.
Mr Cobb’s photographs of the state of the premises as at 31 July 2024 would not have changed the outcome. The premises were not brought up to a reasonably tidy and reasonably clean condition within the 14 days stated in the notice, nor even by 3 July 2024 being 44 days after the notice was issued.
During the hearing to consider the application for re-hearing, the landlord’s agent confirmed that on 27 July 2024 Mr Cobb paid $100.00 towards the outstanding balance of the arrears awarded in the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858, dated 12 Apr 2024. Accordingly, only $36.15 is outstanding under that order. Mr Cobb confirmed he had paid $100 but says he overlooked paying the full amount.
An order that Mr Cobb immediately pay the outstanding arrears awarded in the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858 is made. Mr Cobb must also pay the filing fee in relation to this application.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The tenancy of Shaun Cobb at Unit/Flat 7, 28 Ladies Mile, Remuera, Auckland 1050 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mog Limited T/As Angel Property Managers As Agent For The Chen Family Trust, at 11:59pm, Saturday 7 September 2024.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $36.15 being the outstanding balance of the arrears awarded pursuant to the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858, dated 12 Apr 2024.
The tenant is to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee for this application, being $20.44.
The total award is set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing. Procedural background
On 1 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Cobb’s tenancy and granting the landlord possession at 11:59pm on Saturday 3 August 2024.
On 2 August 2024, Mr Cobb applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had misspelled the email address to which he sent photos of the condition of the property as at 31 July 2024. He had attempted to email the photos on 31 July 2024, as directed during the hearing. The photographs taken on 31 July 2024 were supplied with Mr Cobb’s application for re-hearing filed on 2 August 2024.
On 2 August 2024, pending consideration of the application for re-hearing, a stay of proceedings of the decision dated 1 August 2024 was granted. Grounds for granting a re-hearing
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 a party 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 Mr Cobb has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In the original decision, I found Mr Cobb had failed to comply with the landlord’s notice to remedy a breach, being a failure to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The notice was issued on 20 May 2024 and gave Mr Cobb 14 days to remedy the breach.
The evidence at the hearing was that at a subsequent inspection on 10 June 2024, and a further inspection on 3 July 2024, the premises were still not in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The new evidence which Mr Cobb attempted to file on 31 July 2024, and which was received as part of this application for re-hearing, is, Mr Cobb says, evidence that the premises had been brought up to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition as at 31 July 2024.
The landlord’s agent says the photos take on 31 July 2024 do not show the entirety of the premises and shows only portions of the rooms photographed.
While I accept that the photographs were not available before my original decision was issued on 1 August 2024, it would not have affected the outcome.
Mr Cobb had been issued a notice to remedy the breach within 14 days of 20 May 2024. That notice period expired on 3 June 2024. The evidence was that on 10 June 2024 and 3 July 2024 the property was still not in a reasonably tidy and reasonably clean condition. Those inspections were 21 days after the notice for the 10 June 2024 inspection was issued, and 44 days after the notice was issued for the 3 July 2024 inspection.
Mr Cobb’s photographs of the state of the premises as at 31 July 2024 would not have changed the outcome. The premises were not brought up to a reasonably tidy and reasonably clean condition within the 14 days stated in the notice, nor even by 3 July 2024 being 44 days after the notice was issued.
During the hearing to consider the application for re-hearing, the landlord’s agent confirmed that on 27 July 2024 Mr Cobb paid $100.00 towards the outstanding balance of the arrears awarded in the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858, dated 12 Apr 2024. Accordingly, only $36.15 is outstanding under that order. Mr Cobb confirmed he had paid $100 but says he overlooked paying the full amount.
An order that Mr Cobb immediately pay the outstanding arrears awarded in the previous decision [2024] NZTT 4807858 is made. Mr Cobb must also pay the filing fee in relation to this application.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892524 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 28 Ladies Mile, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892524 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 28 Ladies Mile, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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