What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5025534?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5025534?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206663-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5025534?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5025534?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206663-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55B Whatipu Road, Huia, Auckland 0604, Downstairs Unit Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025534 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal made an order for a conditional termination of the tenancy for rent arrears.
On 4 th December 2024 , Nick Turner applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the adjudicator was wrong in her decision making.
I will set out the grounds as specifically written by Mr Turner in his words in the rehearing application: -I completed my original application under the careful guidance of Tenancy Services. -This guidance from Tenancy Services suggested that Section 9 of the application form is the only place on the form that you can seek termination and clauses resulting from that termination. -At no point within the wording (of section 9 ) of these three lines do I ask for a conditional termination . In point of fact : I am seeking termination of the tenancy because at the date I filed this application. The rent is at least 21. -Further to this and resulting from the expected “Termination” I wanted to include a conditional clause as part of any agreement reached. These were forwarding address so that I could recover the dept and space. -The wording of line 3 in section 9 of the application form I must use is very clear and never mentions a conditional termination! In point of fact it says “I would like to include a Conditional Clause as -In past Tenancy hearings this is exactly what has occurred: -The tenant was more than 21 days in arrears at the time of the application. -The tenancy is terminated and a Termination date is negotiated. -I asked for “conditional clauses” within the negotiation such as repairs, removal of possessions/rubbish , a forwarding address to peruse the unpaid rent etc. -When I tried to clarify my wishes and expectations in the hearing I was told several times by the adjudicator despite her having this wording in front of her that “that’s what I asked for”! Referring I assume to con long as they repay the rent arrears at a rate the adjudicator gets to negotiate with the tenant and the landlord who carries the risk fundamentally has no say in. -Of note is the disconnect between Tenancy Services, the adjudicator, the Act and the forms etc. Progress in the shape of new forms and procedures is great but not without inherent problems. These problems and expectations isn’t sort particularly when assumptions clearly don’t match. Such as this case here where I was continually told I asked for a conditional order, despite my best efforts so point out that was never the case. -The adjudicator appears to have used this as a starting point for the direction of the hearing and evidence then sort has simply grown the problem into what it is now. -The adjudicator attached a link in her correspondence , that I may seek a rehearing . This is another example of the disconnect in that it is an old form apparently from 2019 that doesn’t enable. -This affectively meant I could do nothing until Monday when after numerous calls I was able to get the correct form attached further below. Conditional Termination – Under RTA
Conditional Termination under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) refers only to conditions that must be abided by in order to avoid termination, such as in this case that rent must be paid and the arrears must be paid within the specified period of time OR the tenancy is terminated within 2 working days of the due date.
Mr Turner is incorrect about section 9 in the original application form and what a “conditional termination” means. It does not mean termination with conditional clauses for such things as removal or rubbish, repairs and providing forwarding addresses. Incorrect attachments to Orders
Mr Turner refers to the Adjudicators “attaching” documents to their Orders. The advice attached to Orders regarding rehearing and appeals are provided by Tenancy Services and not Adjudicators. Any incorrect or outdated document should be raised with Tenancy Services. S105(1) RTA- Rehearing’s:
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. Rehearing and Appeals:
Nick Alan Turner has applied for a rehearing of a decision made by me after a hearing on 28 November 2024.
The Tribunal is required to proceed on the limited basis under s105 RTA, namely that a rehearing will be ordered where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is therefore not a matter of asking whether the previous decision made by me on 28 November 2024 was wrong or that a party disagrees with the previous decision.
The Tribunal needs to examine whether there has been some procedural error, or an improper admission or rejection of evidence, or some form of misconduct by the partis or a witness or the Tribunal itself. Also, if there had been new and important evidence discovered that had not been previously available.
Mr Turner does not raise any procedural errors, improper admission or rejection of evidence, or some form of misconduct. Therefore, the limited grounds for rehearing have not been proven by the landlord.
Disagreeing and being unhappy with my decision is for an appeal not a rehearing. Appeal rights:
Mr Turner confirmed at the time of the rehearing hearing that he had not applied for an appeal of my decision, therefore he stated that if I declined his rehearing application there will have been a miscarriage of justice to him as his opportunity to appeal with be outside of time.
Mr Turner did apply for a rehearing within the time prescribed in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”). Importantly he did not appeal that decision to the District Court. I am now dismissing his application for a rehearing.
Mr Turner was aware that any appeal has to be brought within 10 working days after the date of the decision to which the appeal relates.
Mr Turner said he did not file the appeal as he was concerned about losing the filing fee of $260.
Mr Turner askes that if I am dismissing his rehearing application that I extend the time frame for applying for an appeal.
There is no provision in the RTA for an extension of that 10 day time limit. ( See Judd v Davidson [2017] NZDC 13262 Palmerston North). Therefore, I cannot extend the time frame for Mr Turner to appeal my decision made in the hearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons set out above, Nick Turner has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
I do not find that there has been a wrong or miscarriage of justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025534 — Rent arrears at 55B Whatipu Road, Huia, Auckland 0604, Downstairs Unit

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025534 — Rent arrears at 55B Whatipu Road, Huia, Auckland 0604, Downstairs Unit

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