What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993109 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4993109?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993109?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11244608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993109 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4993109?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993109?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11244608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993109 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
The order made by the Tribunal on 21 November 2024 stands and may be enforced henceforth.

Reasons

The Tribunal made an order on 21 November 2024 granting possession to the landlord after notice was given to terminate the tenancy due to extreme levels of methamphetamine contamination at the property. The tenant now seeks a rehearing, asserting that she was unable to participate in the original hearing because the Tribunal did not have her correct contact number.
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
While the tenant could not participate in the original hearing, this alone does not justify a rehearing unless there is evidence of procedural unfairness. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal acted improperly or that the procedural process was flawed. The tenant did not raise any procedural issues as the basis of her application.
The tenant has also failed to provide any new evidence or arguable defence that would lead the Tribunal to make a different decision. The contamination at the property was found to be at extreme levels, posing significant health and safety risks. This was a critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision to terminate the tenancy and grant possession to the landlord. The tenant’s disagreement with the decision or the unfortunate timing of her circumstances does not constitute a miscarriage of justice under section 105(1) RTA.
While the Tribunal empathises with the tenant’s situation—particularly the difficulty of securing alternative accommodation near the Christmas period, her concerns for her elderly mother, and her unsuccessful attempts to find housing through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—the Tribunal cannot take personal factors into account in determining whether the original decision was just. Allowing the tenant and her mother to remain in the contaminated property would only compound the risks to their health and safety.
The Tribunal encourages the tenant to continue working with MSD for urgent assistance. MSD has resources designed to help individuals in precarious housing situations, particularly in emergency cases like this. Additionally, the tenant may wish to contact community housing organisations or local support groups for further assistance in finding accommodation. Conclusion
The tenant has not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed, and the stay of proceedings is lifted. The original order made on 21 November 2024 stands and is enforceable.

Reasons

The Tribunal made an order on 21 November 2024 granting possession to the landlord after notice was given to terminate the tenancy due to extreme levels of methamphetamine contamination at the property. The tenant now seeks a rehearing, asserting that she was unable to participate in the original hearing because the Tribunal did not have her correct contact number.

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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

While the tenant could not participate in the original hearing, this alone does not justify a rehearing unless there is evidence of procedural unfairness. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal acted improperly or that the procedural process was flawed. The tenant did not raise any procedural issues as the basis of her application.

The tenant has also failed to provide any new evidence or arguable defence that would lead the Tribunal to make a different decision. The contamination at the property was found to be at extreme levels, posing significant health and safety risks. This was a critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision to terminate the tenancy and grant possession to the landlord. The tenant’s disagreement with the decision or the unfortunate timing of her circumstances does not constitute a miscarriage of justice under section 105(1) RTA.

While the Tribunal empathises with the tenant’s situation—particularly the difficulty of securing alternative accommodation near the Christmas period, her concerns for her elderly mother, and her unsuccessful attempts to find housing through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—the Tribunal cannot take personal factors into account in determining whether the original decision was just. Allowing the tenant and her mother to remain in the contaminated property would only compound the risks to their health and safety.

The Tribunal encourages the tenant to continue working with MSD for urgent assistance. MSD has resources designed to help individuals in precarious housing situations, particularly in emergency cases like this. Additionally, the tenant may wish to contact community housing organisations or local support groups for further assistance in finding accommodation. Conclusion

The tenant has not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed, and the stay of proceedings is lifted. The original order made on 21 November 2024 stands and is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993109 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993109 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions