What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216972 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5216972?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216972?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12314809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216972 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5216972?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216972?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12314809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216972 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide of there should be a rehearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on four grounds: • Disadvantage to the landlord because a representative was wrongly allowed. • The award of exemplary damages because there was no agent was wrong. • The claim for rent arrears should not have been dismissed. • The fridge was ruined.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the which 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”. Disadvantage to the landlord because a representative was wrongly allowed.
Section 93(2)(b) RTA allows for representation when the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000. There is no requirement to notify the other party before the hearing starts. Usually the other side will be notified by the registry if time allows, but that is not a requirement of the RTA. In terms of how the hearing was managed, I do not find there was any disadvantage to the landlord by the tenant having a representative. She had time to properly present her evidence and submissions. The representative’s submissions and evidence were helpful to the hearing process. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The award of exemplary damages because there was no agent appointed was wrong.
The landlord submitted that I was wrong to order exemplary damages because the tenant’s supporting information, served on the landlord before the hearing, stated that this was no longer a claim. I have reviewed the documents and confirm this is the statement made in the tenant’s document outlining the orders sought:
I did not hear evidence about a claim for compensation. I considered a claim for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are like a penalty and are different from compensation. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The claim for rent arrears should not have been dismissed.
The landlord submitted that I dismissed her application because she did not use the correct rent summary template and this was unfair. Also, that she should have been allowed time to provide the required information about rent arears, including her bank statements. She submitted that she should have been given the opportunity to prove her claim.
I note this from the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
My order sets out that the rent arrears claim was dismissed because some of the rent was paid in cash and the landlord did not have the rent receipts at the hearing, which meant there was not a complete picture of the rent paid. It was incumbent on the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the claim for rent arrears. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The fridge was ruined.
I made an order that the tenant return the fridge immediately. This was done but not to the satisfaction of the landlord, who said the fridge was ruined and the tenant should pay compensation. Both parties provided submissions on depreciation. The fridge was returned because of my order, but the delivery happened months after the tenancy ended. I find I do not have the jurisdiction to consider compensation or whether there was a breach of the common law principles of bailment because the tenancy had ended. If the landlord wants to pursue a claim for the fridge she must do this in another jurisdiction. This is not grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide of there should be a rehearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on four grounds: • Disadvantage to the landlord because a representative was wrongly allowed. • The award of exemplary damages because there was no agent was wrong. • The claim for rent arrears should not have been dismissed. • The fridge was ruined.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the which 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”. Disadvantage to the landlord because a representative was wrongly allowed.
Section 93(2)(b) RTA allows for representation when the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000. There is no requirement to notify the other party before the hearing starts. Usually the other side will be notified by the registry if time allows, but that is not a requirement of the RTA. In terms of how the hearing was managed, I do not find there was any disadvantage to the landlord by the tenant having a representative. She had time to properly present her evidence and submissions. The representative’s submissions and evidence were helpful to the hearing process. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The award of exemplary damages because there was no agent appointed was wrong.
The landlord submitted that I was wrong to order exemplary damages because the tenant’s supporting information, served on the landlord before the hearing, stated that this was no longer a claim. I have reviewed the documents and confirm this is the statement made in the tenant’s document outlining the orders sought:
I did not hear evidence about a claim for compensation. I considered a claim for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are like a penalty and are different from compensation. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The claim for rent arrears should not have been dismissed.
The landlord submitted that I dismissed her application because she did not use the correct rent summary template and this was unfair. Also, that she should have been allowed time to provide the required information about rent arears, including her bank statements. She submitted that she should have been given the opportunity to prove her claim.
I note this from the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
My order sets out that the rent arrears claim was dismissed because some of the rent was paid in cash and the landlord did not have the rent receipts at the hearing, which meant there was not a complete picture of the rent paid. It was incumbent on the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the claim for rent arrears. This is not grounds for a rehearing. The fridge was ruined.
I made an order that the tenant return the fridge immediately. This was done but not to the satisfaction of the landlord, who said the fridge was ruined and the tenant should pay compensation. Both parties provided submissions on depreciation. The fridge was returned because of my order, but the delivery happened months after the tenancy ended. I find I do not have the jurisdiction to consider compensation or whether there was a breach of the common law principles of bailment because the tenancy had ended. If the landlord wants to pursue a claim for the fridge she must do this in another jurisdiction. This is not grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216972 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216972 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions