What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021653 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5021653?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021653?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748131-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021653 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5021653?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021653?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748131-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021653 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenants to pay the landlord for the cost of lawn and garden work and refilling the gas bottle. The Tribunal also granted $1000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenants for the landlord’s breach of their quiet enjoyment. The landlord withdrew her application during the hearing for advertising cost, letting fee, disposal of monitor and repainting costs.
On 13 March 2025 , Neha Mittal applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there was a communication error about the letting fee, advertising costs, cars parked outside the main house and other facts that were “mistakenly misunderstood”. The landlord wanted a new hearing to raise more evidence and witnesses to prove the tenants agreed to pay compensation then changed their minds.
The landlord filed further submissions claiming that she was suffering mental health issues on the day of the hearing and that affected her ability to present her case. Furthermore, that I had misinterpreted s48 (7) Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 Neha Mittal has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a) There has been no misinterpretation of s48 (7) RTA by me and finding that the Adjudicator was wrong in law is a matter for an Appeal to the District Court and not a rehearing application. b) The landlord expanded her claims during the hearing to say she needed a Hindi interpreter to assist her in the hearing. There was a Hindi interpreter sitting in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing that was there for her use as well as the tenants. The landlord did not avail herself of the assistance of the interpreter during the hearing. c) The landlord said she did not ask the Tribunal for an interpreter and did not ask during the hearing for the interpreter’s assistance. d) The landlord did not give the impression that she was unduly stressed or not coping in the hearing. She was able to bring her husband and /or a support person to the hearing, but she chose not to. The landlord was clear, articulate, and assertive in the hearing. At no time was I of the opinion that she was not able to present her claim. e) The landlord says that the two witnesses called by the tenants at the hearing were giving evidence under “duress.” I did not gain that impression and in fact both witnesses were members of the tenant’s family. There is nothing presented to me to substantiate this claim.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven her claim. The grounds for a rehearing are clear, where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
There has been no procedural wrongs nor claims of new evidence to be presented that was not available before the hearing. Nothing raised in this rehearing application would have affected the outcome as I determined it to be in the 10 pages of my written order dated 12 March 2025.
My order of 12 March 2025 stands, and the rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenants to pay the landlord for the cost of lawn and garden work and refilling the gas bottle. The Tribunal also granted $1000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenants for the landlord’s breach of their quiet enjoyment. The landlord withdrew her application during the hearing for advertising cost, letting fee, disposal of monitor and repainting costs.
On 13 March 2025 , Neha Mittal applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there was a communication error about the letting fee, advertising costs, cars parked outside the main house and other facts that were “mistakenly misunderstood”. The landlord wanted a new hearing to raise more evidence and witnesses to prove the tenants agreed to pay compensation then changed their minds.
The landlord filed further submissions claiming that she was suffering mental health issues on the day of the hearing and that affected her ability to present her case. Furthermore, that I had misinterpreted s48 (7) Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 Neha Mittal has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a) There has been no misinterpretation of s48 (7) RTA by me and finding that the Adjudicator was wrong in law is a matter for an Appeal to the District Court and not a rehearing application. b) The landlord expanded her claims during the hearing to say she needed a Hindi interpreter to assist her in the hearing. There was a Hindi interpreter sitting in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing that was there for her use as well as the tenants. The landlord did not avail herself of the assistance of the interpreter during the hearing. c) The landlord said she did not ask the Tribunal for an interpreter and did not ask during the hearing for the interpreter’s assistance. d) The landlord did not give the impression that she was unduly stressed or not coping in the hearing. She was able to bring her husband and /or a support person to the hearing, but she chose not to. The landlord was clear, articulate, and assertive in the hearing. At no time was I of the opinion that she was not able to present her claim. e) The landlord says that the two witnesses called by the tenants at the hearing were giving evidence under “duress.” I did not gain that impression and in fact both witnesses were members of the tenant’s family. There is nothing presented to me to substantiate this claim.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven her claim. The grounds for a rehearing are clear, where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
There has been no procedural wrongs nor claims of new evidence to be presented that was not available before the hearing. Nothing raised in this rehearing application would have affected the outcome as I determined it to be in the 10 pages of my written order dated 12 March 2025.
My order of 12 March 2025 stands, and the rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021653 — Exemplary damages at 48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021653 — Exemplary damages at 48 Williams Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

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