What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904259?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the order of 13 August 2024 (the

How much money was awarded in case 4904259?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904259?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10924715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904259?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the order of 13 August 2024 (the

How much money was awarded in case 4904259?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904259?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10924715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

134 Donald Street, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904259 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the order of 13 August 2024 (the Order) stands.
Barjinder Jit Singh must pay Samuel James Edward Anderson and Csilla Palko $5417.00 immediately, as set out in the Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. On 13 August 2024, the Tribunal made an order that Mr Singh pay Mr Anderson and Ms Palko $5417 as exemplary damages for harassment, retaliatory notice, failure to insulate, and failure to provide healthy homes information.
On 10 September 2024, Mr Singh applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had not been given the opportunity to put his evidence forward and that the decision was one-sided. During today’s hearing he added the grounds that a rehearing should be allowed so that an application he has made against Mr Anderson could be considered as a cross-claim, and that he had not had the opportunity to properly prepare for the substantive 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”.
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 Mr Singh has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. One-sided
The assertion that the Order was one-sided is a criticism of the substantive findings. This is not a ground for rehearing. Preparation
Mr Singh admitted he had not submitted the evidence he now seeks to rely upon as he was busy and did not take the hearing seriously. I note that: a. Mr Singh had 5 weeks between the service of the notice of hearing and the hearing to prepare; b. at the outset of today’s hearing Mr Singh advised that he had mistakenly prepared for another matter before the Tribunal, however the notice of hearing was clear and there was no error in service; c. Mr Singh was not affected by his apparently lack of preparation either at todays hearing or during the substantive hearing; and d. the substantive hearing was adjourned as Mr Singh initially did not attend the teleconference hearing.
A party’s failure to be prepared could constitute a miscarriage if there was insufficient notice of a hearing and they genuinely had no time to prepare. In this case Mr Singh had sufficient notice and was afforded flexibility for his non- attendance. He admitted that his time constraints were due to being busy with work and not prioritising this matter, any prejudice came from his own inaction. There was no procedural flaw which led to a miscarriage. The counterclaim
Since the substantive heating Mr Singh has filed a claim against Mr Anderson. Mr Singh did not mention any such claim during the substantive hearing. There is no prejudice to Mr Singh in this being heard as a separate matter. Mr Singh had the opportunity to raise the possibility of a counterclaim before and during the substantive hearing. This is not a ground for rehearing. The videos and other evidence
Mr Singh has provided what I understand to be the evidence he now seeks to rely upon. This constitutes three video files and a number of wotsapp messages.
Mr Singh says that the first and second videos show criminal wrongdoing and bad behaviour which justified his decision to terminate the tenancy. At the substantive hearing he alleged that these videos record Mr Anderson and Ms Palko conspiring to commit serious criminal acts. He repeated this allegation today and said that the videos show the bad character of Ms Palko and Mr Anderson which was why he terminated. However, these videos record a personal conversation in which Mr Anderson and Ms Palko discuss how they met, and a fancy dress, buffalo head hat which Ms Palko owns.
Not only is Mr Singh’s allegation baseless, but the existence of this video shows the ongoing surveillance of tenants which I found to be unlawful in the Order. Furthermore, even had the video recorded wrongdoing, it has no relevance to the matters before the Tribunal.
The third video shows another tenant moving a camera and records Ms Palko saying “good”. Mr Singh alleges that this shows disrespect for him and says that the camera was damaged. This ground repeats comments made during the substantive hearing. Not only is the act an action of a third party, but it is not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal. Mr Singh says that it shows Ms Palko conspiring against him with other tenants, however, this conclusion is not supported by this or other evidence.
The wotsapp messages continue the themes shown in the large volume of similar messages provided by Mr Anderson and Ms Palko for the substantive hearing. They add nothing further to the evidence already on file.
All the evidence Mr Singh has provided was available to him and could have been produced at the substantive hearing. His failure to do so is due to his own inaction. Furthermore, the evidence is either irrelevant, adds nothing to the records, or is misconstrued. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises or could arise in these circumstances. C Boys08 October 2024

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the order of 13 August 2024 (the Order) stands.
Barjinder Jit Singh must pay Samuel James Edward Anderson and Csilla Palko $5417.00 immediately, as set out in the Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. On 13 August 2024, the Tribunal made an order that Mr Singh pay Mr Anderson and Ms Palko $5417 as exemplary damages for harassment, retaliatory notice, failure to insulate, and failure to provide healthy homes information.
On 10 September 2024, Mr Singh applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had not been given the opportunity to put his evidence forward and that the decision was one-sided. During today’s hearing he added the grounds that a rehearing should be allowed so that an application he has made against Mr Anderson could be considered as a cross-claim, and that he had not had the opportunity to properly prepare for the substantive 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”.
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 Mr Singh has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. One-sided
The assertion that the Order was one-sided is a criticism of the substantive findings. This is not a ground for rehearing. Preparation
Mr Singh admitted he had not submitted the evidence he now seeks to rely upon as he was busy and did not take the hearing seriously. I note that: a. Mr Singh had 5 weeks between the service of the notice of hearing and the hearing to prepare; b. at the outset of today’s hearing Mr Singh advised that he had mistakenly prepared for another matter before the Tribunal, however the notice of hearing was clear and there was no error in service; c. Mr Singh was not affected by his apparently lack of preparation either at todays hearing or during the substantive hearing; and d. the substantive hearing was adjourned as Mr Singh initially did not attend the teleconference hearing.
A party’s failure to be prepared could constitute a miscarriage if there was insufficient notice of a hearing and they genuinely had no time to prepare. In this case Mr Singh had sufficient notice and was afforded flexibility for his non- attendance. He admitted that his time constraints were due to being busy with work and not prioritising this matter, any prejudice came from his own inaction. There was no procedural flaw which led to a miscarriage. The counterclaim
Since the substantive heating Mr Singh has filed a claim against Mr Anderson. Mr Singh did not mention any such claim during the substantive hearing. There is no prejudice to Mr Singh in this being heard as a separate matter. Mr Singh had the opportunity to raise the possibility of a counterclaim before and during the substantive hearing. This is not a ground for rehearing. The videos and other evidence
Mr Singh has provided what I understand to be the evidence he now seeks to rely upon. This constitutes three video files and a number of wotsapp messages.
Mr Singh says that the first and second videos show criminal wrongdoing and bad behaviour which justified his decision to terminate the tenancy. At the substantive hearing he alleged that these videos record Mr Anderson and Ms Palko conspiring to commit serious criminal acts. He repeated this allegation today and said that the videos show the bad character of Ms Palko and Mr Anderson which was why he terminated. However, these videos record a personal conversation in which Mr Anderson and Ms Palko discuss how they met, and a fancy dress, buffalo head hat which Ms Palko owns.
Not only is Mr Singh’s allegation baseless, but the existence of this video shows the ongoing surveillance of tenants which I found to be unlawful in the Order. Furthermore, even had the video recorded wrongdoing, it has no relevance to the matters before the Tribunal.
The third video shows another tenant moving a camera and records Ms Palko saying “good”. Mr Singh alleges that this shows disrespect for him and says that the camera was damaged. This ground repeats comments made during the substantive hearing. Not only is the act an action of a third party, but it is not relevant to the issues before the Tribunal. Mr Singh says that it shows Ms Palko conspiring against him with other tenants, however, this conclusion is not supported by this or other evidence.
The wotsapp messages continue the themes shown in the large volume of similar messages provided by Mr Anderson and Ms Palko for the substantive hearing. They add nothing further to the evidence already on file.
All the evidence Mr Singh has provided was available to him and could have been produced at the substantive hearing. His failure to do so is due to his own inaction. Furthermore, the evidence is either irrelevant, adds nothing to the records, or is misconstrued. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises or could arise in these circumstances. C Boys08 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904259 — Healthy homes at 134 Donald Street, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904259 — Healthy homes at 134 Donald Street, Karori, Wellington 6012

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