What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940878?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4940878?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940878?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940878?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4940878?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940878?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

622A Main Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940878 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mrs Wood, the landlord, and Ms Knell, the tenant, both attended the teleconference hearing.
Mrs Wood has applied for a rehearing of a Tribunal order made on 27 August 2024, dismissing her claim for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and notice to quit.
Mrs Wood’s grounds for applying for a rehearing were that the adjudicator wanted an up-to-date rent summary and that she had not done the credits properly on the rent summary she had provided. Mrs Wood said that, if the hearing had been face-to-face in a court hearing, as she thought it was going to be, it could have been sorted out, as she had trouble understanding the adjudicator over the phone. Mrs Wood said she wanted a face-to-face hearing in court.
At the rehearing consideration hearing, Mrs Wood said she believed her rent schedule had been accurate from the start. She clarified that she did not want to adjourn the hearing, as asked by the adjudicator at the hearing, as she wanted an order removing the tenant.
The tenant, Ms Knell, said she did not believe the landlord should have a rehearing granted, as a lot of the rent payments she made did not show up on the landlord’s rent summary and she believed it was inaccurate as such. The Law
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”.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: “[18] ... They most obviously apply ... 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 a witness. The words may 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 for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 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 obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Cheryl Wood has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tribunal’s order dated 27 August 2024 noted that the adjudicator had directed the landlord on 22 August 2024, prior to the hearing, to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that she had received that direction but considered she did not need to provide any further rent summary. The adjudicator explained to the landlord the importance of an accurate and updated rent summary in making decisions about claims and offered the landlord an adjournment for her to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. The landlord declined to adjourn the hearing.
In the circumstances, all efforts were made by the Tribunal to offer the landlord the opportunity to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. However, the landlord did not take up any of these opportunities and said she wished to proceed and have a decision made based on the evidence she had already provided. The landlord has not shown there has been any procedural errors at the hearing, nor was there any new evidence which could not have been available at the hearing. I find there has been no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The landlord’s rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mrs Wood, the landlord, and Ms Knell, the tenant, both attended the teleconference hearing.
Mrs Wood has applied for a rehearing of a Tribunal order made on 27 August 2024, dismissing her claim for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and notice to quit.
Mrs Wood’s grounds for applying for a rehearing were that the adjudicator wanted an up-to-date rent summary and that she had not done the credits properly on the rent summary she had provided. Mrs Wood said that, if the hearing had been face-to-face in a court hearing, as she thought it was going to be, it could have been sorted out, as she had trouble understanding the adjudicator over the phone. Mrs Wood said she wanted a face-to-face hearing in court.
At the rehearing consideration hearing, Mrs Wood said she believed her rent schedule had been accurate from the start. She clarified that she did not want to adjourn the hearing, as asked by the adjudicator at the hearing, as she wanted an order removing the tenant.
The tenant, Ms Knell, said she did not believe the landlord should have a rehearing granted, as a lot of the rent payments she made did not show up on the landlord’s rent summary and she believed it was inaccurate as such. The Law
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”.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: “[18] ... They most obviously apply ... 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 a witness. The words may 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 for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 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 obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Cheryl Wood has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Tribunal’s order dated 27 August 2024 noted that the adjudicator had directed the landlord on 22 August 2024, prior to the hearing, to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that she had received that direction but considered she did not need to provide any further rent summary. The adjudicator explained to the landlord the importance of an accurate and updated rent summary in making decisions about claims and offered the landlord an adjournment for her to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. The landlord declined to adjourn the hearing.
In the circumstances, all efforts were made by the Tribunal to offer the landlord the opportunity to provide a corrected and updated rent summary. However, the landlord did not take up any of these opportunities and said she wished to proceed and have a decision made based on the evidence she had already provided. The landlord has not shown there has been any procedural errors at the hearing, nor was there any new evidence which could not have been available at the hearing. I find there has been no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The landlord’s rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940878 — Rent arrears at 622A Main Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940878 — Rent arrears at 622A Main Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North

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