What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134351?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5134351?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134351?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11924209-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134351?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5134351?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134351?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11924209-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Richardson Avenue, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134351 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 13 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order that Mr and Mrs Oliver pay the landlord the sum of $2,270.00 from the bond with the remaining bond to be paid to Mr and Mrs Oliver.
On 19 March 2025, Mrs Oliver applied for a rehearing. I held a hearing today to determine whether the rehearing should be granted. Ms Fang and Ms Creed attended the hearing for the landlord. Both Mr and Mrs Oliver attended.
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 and Mrs Oliver’s grounds for a rehearing are set out in their application and were elaborated further by Mrs Oliver at the hearing. They claim that they did not have sufficient time to prepare their response to the landlord’s claim. They also said that they would have preferred an in person hearing because of their age (Mrs Oliver is 72 and Mr Oliver is 75), and to enable them to present hard copies of evidence to support their position.
Mr and Mrs Oliver claim that it was not until the property manager spoke to Mrs Oliver on 12 March (the day before the hearing) that they knew the nature of the landlord’s claim. However, the landlord’s application, supporting documents, and the notice of hearing were emailed to Mr and Mrs Oliver at their email addresses on 29 January 2025. The application and supporting documents gave sufficient detail of the nature of the landlord’s claim to enable Mr and Mrs Oliver to prepare their response. They therefore had ample time to prepare their defence to the claim.
Mr and Mrs Oliver claim that they were unable to adequately present their defence at the hearing on 13 March because it was held by way of teleconference rather than it being an in person at the local Courts. However, the time to express their concerns regarding the method of the hearing was either before or at the hearing. They did not do so, and they did not give any indication at the hearing of any difficulties they might be having in understanding the oral evidence given by the landlord or the property manager. Neither did they give me any concerns that they might be having difficulties expressing their defence.
Mrs Oliver also said that had there been an in person hearing she would have been able to provide me with hard copies of oral evidence she had given at the hearing, in particular, evidence of the date and time of phone calls made to the property managers. However, she read out the relevant dates and times of the phone calls at the hearing, and I took that evidence into account when I made my decision. Therefore, hard copies of the evidence would not have made any difference to the outcome.
I therefore find that Mr and Mrs Oliver have not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or may have occurred. I accept that they are unhappy with my decision and would like to have it reconsidered but, as mentioned above, this is insufficient grounds to support an application for rehearing.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 13 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order that Mr and Mrs Oliver pay the landlord the sum of $2,270.00 from the bond with the remaining bond to be paid to Mr and Mrs Oliver.
On 19 March 2025, Mrs Oliver applied for a rehearing. I held a hearing today to determine whether the rehearing should be granted. Ms Fang and Ms Creed attended the hearing for the landlord. Both Mr and Mrs Oliver attended.
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 and Mrs Oliver’s grounds for a rehearing are set out in their application and were elaborated further by Mrs Oliver at the hearing. They claim that they did not have sufficient time to prepare their response to the landlord’s claim. They also said that they would have preferred an in person hearing because of their age (Mrs Oliver is 72 and Mr Oliver is 75), and to enable them to present hard copies of evidence to support their position.
Mr and Mrs Oliver claim that it was not until the property manager spoke to Mrs Oliver on 12 March (the day before the hearing) that they knew the nature of the landlord’s claim. However, the landlord’s application, supporting documents, and the notice of hearing were emailed to Mr and Mrs Oliver at their email addresses on 29 January 2025. The application and supporting documents gave sufficient detail of the nature of the landlord’s claim to enable Mr and Mrs Oliver to prepare their response. They therefore had ample time to prepare their defence to the claim.
Mr and Mrs Oliver claim that they were unable to adequately present their defence at the hearing on 13 March because it was held by way of teleconference rather than it being an in person at the local Courts. However, the time to express their concerns regarding the method of the hearing was either before or at the hearing. They did not do so, and they did not give any indication at the hearing of any difficulties they might be having in understanding the oral evidence given by the landlord or the property manager. Neither did they give me any concerns that they might be having difficulties expressing their defence.
Mrs Oliver also said that had there been an in person hearing she would have been able to provide me with hard copies of oral evidence she had given at the hearing, in particular, evidence of the date and time of phone calls made to the property managers. However, she read out the relevant dates and times of the phone calls at the hearing, and I took that evidence into account when I made my decision. Therefore, hard copies of the evidence would not have made any difference to the outcome.
I therefore find that Mr and Mrs Oliver have not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or may have occurred. I accept that they are unhappy with my decision and would like to have it reconsidered but, as mentioned above, this is insufficient grounds to support an application for rehearing.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134351 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Richardson Avenue, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134351 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Richardson Avenue, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions