What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4934077?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4934077?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11193072-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4934077?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4934077?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11193072-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4934077 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order declaring that the tenancy is not a boarding house tenancy and awarding compensation of $450.00 to the landlord. The landlord claims for termination, rent arrears, outgoings, and damage were dismissed.
On 12 November 2024, Amanda Tien, Property Manager of Bright Homes Services Ltd applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) the tenant’s abusive behaviour has caused mental health issues for the Property Manager, b) there are sharp conflicts between the tenant and Property Manager, c) the Adjudicator mistakenly believes that the landlord’s family are tenants, d) when the tenant signed the boarding agreement the upstairs and downstairs were freely interconnected, e) the tenant didn’t attend the hearing in person, f) the Adjudicator didn’t provide reasonable time for Property Manager to state whole matters, g) the Adjudicator ignored the bills and calculations provided by the Property Manager, and h) the tenant provided an email from another government notifying her that she does not have to move out.
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 Amanda Tien has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The relevant grounds submitted by the Property Manager in relation to whether there should be a rehearing are that she could not hear the tenant who attended the hearing by telephone, and the Adjudicator did not give the Property Manager enough time to talk.
The tenant had requested that the hearing be adjourned as she was unable to attend in person due to a health issue and she had submitted a medical certificate in support. Instead of adjourning the hearing it was directed that the tenant attend the hearing by telephone which is what happened.
The landlord complains that she could not hear the tenant over the telephone. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter at the hearing.
While it can be challenging where one party attends a hearing by telephone the issue for the landlord is more likely to be a language barrier because when the tenant spoke at the hearing that she attended in person the landlord required translation. As the landlord had an interpreter present it is not accepted that this is sufficient reason for a rehearing to be granted.
The landlord submits that she was not given enough time to talk. She says that the hearing should have gone from 9am until 1pm but instead it ended at
30am.
The hearing notice states that the start time is 9.30am and the end time is 1pm. It is expected that hearings are completed within the time allocated and that the Adjudicator completes the decision and order within that time. The time allocated depends on the claims submitted and allows extra time for decision making. It is therefore not accepted that the landlord was not given enough time to talk because the hearing concluded at 11.30am.
The other grounds raised by the landlord relate to the landlord not agreeing with the order and in particular the declaration that the tenancy is not a boarding house tenancy. They are not grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order declaring that the tenancy is not a boarding house tenancy and awarding compensation of $450.00 to the landlord. The landlord claims for termination, rent arrears, outgoings, and damage were dismissed.
On 12 November 2024, Amanda Tien, Property Manager of Bright Homes Services Ltd applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) the tenant’s abusive behaviour has caused mental health issues for the Property Manager, b) there are sharp conflicts between the tenant and Property Manager, c) the Adjudicator mistakenly believes that the landlord’s family are tenants, d) when the tenant signed the boarding agreement the upstairs and downstairs were freely interconnected, e) the tenant didn’t attend the hearing in person, f) the Adjudicator didn’t provide reasonable time for Property Manager to state whole matters, g) the Adjudicator ignored the bills and calculations provided by the Property Manager, and h) the tenant provided an email from another government notifying her that she does not have to move out.
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 Amanda Tien has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The relevant grounds submitted by the Property Manager in relation to whether there should be a rehearing are that she could not hear the tenant who attended the hearing by telephone, and the Adjudicator did not give the Property Manager enough time to talk.
The tenant had requested that the hearing be adjourned as she was unable to attend in person due to a health issue and she had submitted a medical certificate in support. Instead of adjourning the hearing it was directed that the tenant attend the hearing by telephone which is what happened.
The landlord complains that she could not hear the tenant over the telephone. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter at the hearing.
While it can be challenging where one party attends a hearing by telephone the issue for the landlord is more likely to be a language barrier because when the tenant spoke at the hearing that she attended in person the landlord required translation. As the landlord had an interpreter present it is not accepted that this is sufficient reason for a rehearing to be granted.
The landlord submits that she was not given enough time to talk. She says that the hearing should have gone from 9am until 1pm but instead it ended at
30am.
The hearing notice states that the start time is 9.30am and the end time is 1pm. It is expected that hearings are completed within the time allocated and that the Adjudicator completes the decision and order within that time. The time allocated depends on the claims submitted and allows extra time for decision making. It is therefore not accepted that the landlord was not given enough time to talk because the hearing concluded at 11.30am.
The other grounds raised by the landlord relate to the landlord not agreeing with the order and in particular the declaration that the tenancy is not a boarding house tenancy. They are not grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934077 — Rent arrears at 30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934077 — Rent arrears at 30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

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