What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057228?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of proceeding is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 5057228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057228?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641481-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057228?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of proceeding is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 5057228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057228?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641481-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8, 81 Livingstone Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5057228 — Harassment

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of proceeding is lifted.
The order is reissued and edited to decline the application for name suppression.

Reasons

This order is amended declining the application for name suppression. The original order declined name suppression application and no reasons were advanced in the rehearing to change this decision. The rest of the order remains unchanged .
Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nathan had a support person, and the landlord was represented by Ms Stubbs.
On 2 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour and dismissed the tenant’s cross application for reimbursement of costs, harassment, and addition of handrails and a bath to the premises.
On 8 December 2024, Mr Nathan applied for a rehearing which was heard on 14 January 2025.The tenants claim was based on the grounds that, a) His evidence was not produced or considered. The tenant bought to the Tribunals attention photographs of parked cars, specifically one parked by a yellow line and of an area that did not have a ‘no parking’ sign. These photographs were produced and discussed at the first hearing. No other evidence of rejected, not considered, or not produced evidence was provided. b) He had an invoice for the towing costs of the car. This evidence confirmed that the car was towed and would not have altered the decision because the issue was whether the tenant had the right under the tenancy agreement to park at the premises. c) There were no, ‘no parking’ signs where he parked at the complex. The landlord installed a ‘no parking’ sign in approximately August 2024 after the tenant kept parking at the premises even though he had no assigned car park. The lack of no ‘no parking’ signs did not mean that the tenant could park where he wanted. d) The tenant had a Doctors report stating that he needed bathroom handrails. This was new evidence but does not affect the outcome of the hearing as discussed in the original hearing the landlord maintains that they do not install handrails and the premises have never had a bath or it was removed for safety. There is a procedure to follow by a tenant because handrails are installed by the Ministry of Health after a referral and plan from the occupational therapists at the Hospital. The tenant confirmed that he has not forwarded the Doctors recommendation to the occupational therapists yet. e) The tenant wanted to ask questions of the people who complained about him and disputed the documented list of his parking in other carparks. The landlord said that the names of the complainants were redacted because the village they live in is small, and they feared how they would be treated as many had been treated well by the tenant. The tenant agreed that he had parked in other tenants’ spaces but said that they agreed to it. No supporting new evidence was provided. f)The tenant did not do a walk through with his support worker and needed a bath in his unit. The landlord believed that the support worker came and walked through with the tenant and pointed out maintenance issues. No evidence was provided that the support worker did not complete a walk through. g) There was mistaken date was recorded in the order for when a notice was issued. The order recorded that the third notice about parking was issued on 7 November and the tenant said this was issued on the 4 November and he received it. I do not find that this would alter the original decision. h) A photograph of a yellow line with a car parked at the end showed other cars parked in the ambulance bay was produced. The landlord explained that at the end of the yellow line is an allocated carpark, not tenants parking wherever they want. i)Photos of a car parked not showing the number plate were inadmissible. The tenant agreed that he had parked in the complex, in other carparks and in by the rubbish collection. Even if some photos did not show a registration number there was enough evidence to establish that the tenant was parking in these areas. After the hearing on 2 December the tenant’s car was towed again for parking breaches.
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?

The tenant was unable to provide any new evidence that may have affected the outcome of the hearing and did not direct the Tribunal to any issues with the procedure. All the evidence provided was considered and time allowed for the parties to review evidence produced.
Mr Nathan agreed that he had parked in the complex when his tenancy agreement did not include a carpark and no further new evidence was provided on this issue.
I find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The application is dismissed, and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of proceeding is lifted.
The order is reissued and edited to decline the application for name suppression.

Reasons

This order is amended declining the application for name suppression. The original order declined name suppression application and no reasons were advanced in the rehearing to change this decision. The rest of the order remains unchanged .
Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nathan had a support person, and the landlord was represented by Ms Stubbs.
On 2 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour and dismissed the tenant’s cross application for reimbursement of costs, harassment, and addition of handrails and a bath to the premises.
On 8 December 2024, Mr Nathan applied for a rehearing which was heard on 14 January 2025.The tenants claim was based on the grounds that, a) His evidence was not produced or considered. The tenant bought to the Tribunals attention photographs of parked cars, specifically one parked by a yellow line and of an area that did not have a ‘no parking’ sign. These photographs were produced and discussed at the first hearing. No other evidence of rejected, not considered, or not produced evidence was provided. b) He had an invoice for the towing costs of the car. This evidence confirmed that the car was towed and would not have altered the decision because the issue was whether the tenant had the right under the tenancy agreement to park at the premises. c) There were no, ‘no parking’ signs where he parked at the complex. The landlord installed a ‘no parking’ sign in approximately August 2024 after the tenant kept parking at the premises even though he had no assigned car park. The lack of no ‘no parking’ signs did not mean that the tenant could park where he wanted. d) The tenant had a Doctors report stating that he needed bathroom handrails. This was new evidence but does not affect the outcome of the hearing as discussed in the original hearing the landlord maintains that they do not install handrails and the premises have never had a bath or it was removed for safety. There is a procedure to follow by a tenant because handrails are installed by the Ministry of Health after a referral and plan from the occupational therapists at the Hospital. The tenant confirmed that he has not forwarded the Doctors recommendation to the occupational therapists yet. e) The tenant wanted to ask questions of the people who complained about him and disputed the documented list of his parking in other carparks. The landlord said that the names of the complainants were redacted because the village they live in is small, and they feared how they would be treated as many had been treated well by the tenant. The tenant agreed that he had parked in other tenants’ spaces but said that they agreed to it. No supporting new evidence was provided. f)The tenant did not do a walk through with his support worker and needed a bath in his unit. The landlord believed that the support worker came and walked through with the tenant and pointed out maintenance issues. No evidence was provided that the support worker did not complete a walk through. g) There was mistaken date was recorded in the order for when a notice was issued. The order recorded that the third notice about parking was issued on 7 November and the tenant said this was issued on the 4 November and he received it. I do not find that this would alter the original decision. h) A photograph of a yellow line with a car parked at the end showed other cars parked in the ambulance bay was produced. The landlord explained that at the end of the yellow line is an allocated carpark, not tenants parking wherever they want. i)Photos of a car parked not showing the number plate were inadmissible. The tenant agreed that he had parked in the complex, in other carparks and in by the rubbish collection. Even if some photos did not show a registration number there was enough evidence to establish that the tenant was parking in these areas. After the hearing on 2 December the tenant’s car was towed again for parking breaches.
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?

The tenant was unable to provide any new evidence that may have affected the outcome of the hearing and did not direct the Tribunal to any issues with the procedure. All the evidence provided was considered and time allowed for the parties to review evidence produced.
Mr Nathan agreed that he had parked in the complex when his tenancy agreement did not include a carpark and no further new evidence was provided on this issue.
I find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The application is dismissed, and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057228 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 81 Livingstone Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057228 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 81 Livingstone Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton

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