What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4975134?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4975134?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975134?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143625-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4975134?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4975134?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975134?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143625-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4975134 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Eric Zhang attended the hearing for the tenant, Mr Shi.

Anna Zho attended the hearing for the landlord.

On 25 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order against Mr Shi for rent arrears on $13,607.28 and $27.00 for the filing fee.

On 1 October 2024, Mr Shi applied for a rehearing on the stated grounds that:

The claim made by Barley that I did not fully pay the rent is not consistent with the facts. On September 27, I printed the payment records from the bank, and after verifying, I confirmed that all rent payments have been fully made at the weekly rate of 2500 NZD from the start of the lease until the 27th. The bank payment records can serve as evidence.

About half a year ago, the agent called me saying I owed rent. After checking with the agent, she mentioned that the landlord requested to increase the rent to 2800 NZD per week. The agent said she would send me an email, but I was in Korea at the time and did not receive it, and I clearly did not agree to the rent increase.

A rent of 2500 NZD per week is considered high in the market, and this house has many issues. Since moving in, there have been constant repairs, including water leaks, electrical issues, and more. The front door has been repaired over 20 times, one of the basement bedrooms used by the owner for storage had mouldy items that caused a strong mouldy smell, which was not cleaned until half a year later. The garage has been flooded three times, becoming damp, mouldy, and smelly. The curtains, faucets, kitchen stove, bathroom facilities, doors, locks, and other equipment required constant repairs, severely affecting our daily life and health. My child was bitten and injured all over the body after moving in. There are photos to prove this. Therefore, I am applying for a rehearing and requesting compensation from the landlord for mental and health damages. Legal principles

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?

Mr Shi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Mr Shi failed to pay rent on 10 February 2024 and 4 May 2024. He has underpaid rent by $300.00 per week since 1 December 2023 when the weekly rent was increased to $2,800.00 per week. Mr Shi disagreed with the rent increase. However, the landlord gave the tenant proper notice of the rent increase by giving notice to the landlord’s address for service.

Mr Shi is mistaken if he thinks that tenants have a general right to refuse to pay a landlord’s lawfully increased weekly rent. Nor does it assist him that he did not receive the notice due to being in Korea. The landlord sent the notice to the tenant’s correct email address for service.

Since then, the landlord has repeatedly confirmed the rent increase, but Mr Shi has obdurately refused to pay the increase. His objection to paying the rent increase is not truly based on not having been given notice of the rent increase. Rather, he disagrees with it.

Mr Shi evidently considers the rent is set too high and the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard or repair. However, those matters are not relevant to this claim which is simply for rent arrears. Mr Shi is at liberty to bring his own claims in respect to those matters if there is a basis for them. To date, he has not brought any application for them.

I can see no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arising from the decision. The Tribunal has no power to order a rehearing I the circumstances.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Eric Zhang attended the hearing for the tenant, Mr Shi.

Anna Zho attended the hearing for the landlord.

On 25 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order against Mr Shi for rent arrears on $13,607.28 and $27.00 for the filing fee.

On 1 October 2024, Mr Shi applied for a rehearing on the stated grounds that:

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Mr Shi has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

I can see no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arising from the decision. The Tribunal has no power to order a rehearing I the circumstances.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975134 — Rent arrears at 43 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975134 — Rent arrears at 43 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

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