What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970194 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4970194?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970194?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970194 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4970194?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970194?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 115 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970194 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone today. Background
On 21 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord on 4 September 2024.
On 26 August 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing. The grounds of the application were unclear.
The Tribunal arranged for a hearing to be scheduled to determine whether to grant the application for rehearing. The evidence
The tenant said that the first time she was notified of the hearing was the day before it took place. The landlord had given evidence that they placed a copy of the notice of hearing in the tenant’s letter box.
The tenant contacted the Tenancy Services call centre on the day of the hearing. She was advised to contact the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing.
At today’s hearing, the tenant said she could produce the email she sent to the Tribunal requesting the adjournment. After the hearing she contacted the Ministry of Justice contact centre twice. She said she could no longer access her email requesting an adjournment because that email address had been hacked. She then asked the Tribunal to send her a copy of her email requesting an adjournment.
The Tribunal registrar contacted the tenant and asked her to confirm the email address she sent the adjournment request from. His search of the Tribunal’s contact email address (christchurchtt@justice.govt.nz) shows no emails from the tenant from any email address on the date of the hearing.
The day after the hearing, the tenant emailed the Tribunal requesting a rehearing, but no reference number was provided. She emailed the application number on 26 August and the application was then processed.
The landlord opposes the application for rehearing. While there are no rent arears, the landlord’s representative said the damage described in evidence at the first hearing remains and the landlord (the owner) requires possession so their insurer can assess the damage. Law
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. Findings
I am satisfied that the tenant was made aware of the hearing by email and SMS message on 16 August 2024; she was further made aware of it the day before the hearing when the landlord placed the notice of hearing in her letter box; and she was also aware of the hearing on 21 August because she contacted the Tenancy Services call centre.
I do not accept that the tenant requested an adjournment. She has been unable to provide a copy of her email requesting an adjournment, despite her saying that she had kept every message and would provide the email by 4.00pm today.
Her statement that she emailed the christchurchtt@justice.govt.nz email address is not supported by any evidence. The registrar’s search of all incoming emails that day (after getting confirmation from the tenant of the email address the request was sent from) shows nothing. No emails from any of the email addresses referred to by the tenant were received.
The Tribunal is satisfied that she was properly served with the notice of hearing by email; that an SMS message was sent to her phone with the hearing details (the number the Tribunal contacted her on today); that she received the notice of hearing the landlord placed in her letterbox; and that she did not send an email requesting an adjournment.
Despite the tenant’s assurance that she had kept every email and would produce the email requesting an adjournment, she has not done so.
The registrar’s thorough search of the email address the tenant says she sent the adjournment request from shows no emails from that or any other email address from the tenant on the day of or before the hearing.
Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure in this case. The criteria for a rehearing are not met.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
At the hearing on 21 August 2024, the landlord’s representative said they would work with the tenant to assist her to vacate the premises. The landlord agreed to an extended possession date. I am confident that the landlord’s offer then will remain now.
The Tribunal’s possession order was not stayed and can be enforced. Name suppression
I have continued name suppression for the tenant for the reasons set out in my decision dated 21 August 2024.

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone today. Background
On 21 August 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord on 4 September 2024.
On 26 August 2024 the tenant applied for a rehearing. The grounds of the application were unclear.
The Tribunal arranged for a hearing to be scheduled to determine whether to grant the application for rehearing. The evidence
The tenant said that the first time she was notified of the hearing was the day before it took place. The landlord had given evidence that they placed a copy of the notice of hearing in the tenant’s letter box.
The tenant contacted the Tenancy Services call centre on the day of the hearing. She was advised to contact the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing.
At today’s hearing, the tenant said she could produce the email she sent to the Tribunal requesting the adjournment. After the hearing she contacted the Ministry of Justice contact centre twice. She said she could no longer access her email requesting an adjournment because that email address had been hacked. She then asked the Tribunal to send her a copy of her email requesting an adjournment.
The Tribunal registrar contacted the tenant and asked her to confirm the email address she sent the adjournment request from. His search of the Tribunal’s contact email address (christchurchtt@justice.govt.nz) shows no emails from the tenant from any email address on the date of the hearing.
The day after the hearing, the tenant emailed the Tribunal requesting a rehearing, but no reference number was provided. She emailed the application number on 26 August and the application was then processed.
The landlord opposes the application for rehearing. While there are no rent arears, the landlord’s representative said the damage described in evidence at the first hearing remains and the landlord (the owner) requires possession so their insurer can assess the damage. Law
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. Findings
I am satisfied that the tenant was made aware of the hearing by email and SMS message on 16 August 2024; she was further made aware of it the day before the hearing when the landlord placed the notice of hearing in her letter box; and she was also aware of the hearing on 21 August because she contacted the Tenancy Services call centre.
I do not accept that the tenant requested an adjournment. She has been unable to provide a copy of her email requesting an adjournment, despite her saying that she had kept every message and would provide the email by 4.00pm today.
Her statement that she emailed the christchurchtt@justice.govt.nz email address is not supported by any evidence. The registrar’s search of all incoming emails that day (after getting confirmation from the tenant of the email address the request was sent from) shows nothing. No emails from any of the email addresses referred to by the tenant were received.
The Tribunal is satisfied that she was properly served with the notice of hearing by email; that an SMS message was sent to her phone with the hearing details (the number the Tribunal contacted her on today); that she received the notice of hearing the landlord placed in her letterbox; and that she did not send an email requesting an adjournment.
Despite the tenant’s assurance that she had kept every email and would produce the email requesting an adjournment, she has not done so.
The registrar’s thorough search of the email address the tenant says she sent the adjournment request from shows no emails from that or any other email address from the tenant on the day of or before the hearing.
Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure in this case. The criteria for a rehearing are not met.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
At the hearing on 21 August 2024, the landlord’s representative said they would work with the tenant to assist her to vacate the premises. The landlord agreed to an extended possession date. I am confident that the landlord’s offer then will remain now.
The Tribunal’s possession order was not stayed and can be enforced. Name suppression
I have continued name suppression for the tenant for the reasons set out in my decision dated 21 August 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970194 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 115 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970194 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 115 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions