What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4466420?

The tribunal order states: This order will not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4466420?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4466420?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4466420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9466254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4466420?

The tribunal order states: This order will not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4466420?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4466420?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4466420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9466254-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Checketts Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4466420 — Rent arrears

Order

This order will not be published.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the dismissal of the tenants’ application number 4579174 does not prevent them from making claims against the landlords by filing a fresh application.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Ngo attended the hearing for the landlords. Both tenants attended the hearing. The tenants had a support person with them, Mr Raymond, who I allowed to speak for them.
On 14 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation against the tenants and dismissed the tenants’ cross application.
There is quite a long history to this case. The landlords made their application in December 2022. Since then, there have been four hearings and two applications for rehearing. This order deals with the second such application.
On 10 August 2023 the tenants made this application for a rehearing on grounds that the landlord did not produce any evidence of their costs and something about having to give up a job in Glenorchy and return to the premises in Christchurch. As I have said previously, there is ample evidence of the landlord’s costs. The rest of the application, frankly, doesn’t make a lot of sense and it certainly is not a ground for a rehearing.
At the rehearing hearing it became clear that the real grounds for the rehearing application are that they were not contacted at the time of the last hearing on 14 June and that they have a partial defence to the landlords’ claims.
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. Discussion and Decision
The tenants insisted that they were ready and waiting for calls on the day of the hearing on 14 June and the calls did not come. I am equally sure that I made the calls and that they were made to the correct telephone numbers. The tenants have not produced any evidence as to why those calls were not connected and I so I must assume that the tenants either didn’t want to take the calls or that they were not prepared for them. Either way, I do not accept that there is any reason to order a rehearing because the tenants were denied the opportunity to attend the hearing.
There is no dispute about the rent arrears. In relation to the rubbish left at the premises, the tenants said that the premises were not provided to them in a reasonably clean and tidy state. That may be the basis for a claim by the tenants against the landlords, but it is not a reason for a rehearing.
The tenants disputed the claim for cleaning costs on the basis that the landlords told them that they intended renovating the premises. Mr Ngo said that his responsibility as the landlord’s agent was to restore the premises to the state that it should have been left in.
Even if the landlord did intend to renovate, the premises should still have been left clean and tidy. As well, the tenants have not produced any evidence that the landlord intended to renovate or has renovated. The landlord may have expressed an intention to renovate but not done so. This is not a reason for a hearing either.
Mr Raymond then listed the claims that the tenants want to make against the landlords. When I asked why the tenants had not filed an application, he said that they had found it very difficult to do so. Yet I note that the tenants did file an application and that I dismissed it because they did not attend the hearing. It refers to the landlords’ failure to maintain the premises and their failure to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy. It also states that the tenants are not seeking compensation.
The real point is the tenants do know how to file an application and they can still do so. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have put that in my order.
There is no reason to order a rehearing in this case. I am satisfied that even if there were a procedural reason for a rehearing, a rehearing would be pointless because the result would be the same. The tenants can make their own application and the claims they have referred to can be dealt with at the hearing of that application.

Order

This order will not be published.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the dismissal of the tenants’ application number 4579174 does not prevent them from making claims against the landlords by filing a fresh application.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Ngo attended the hearing for the landlords. Both tenants attended the hearing. The tenants had a support person with them, Mr Raymond, who I allowed to speak for them.
On 14 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation against the tenants and dismissed the tenants’ cross application.
There is quite a long history to this case. The landlords made their application in December 2022. Since then, there have been four hearings and two applications for rehearing. This order deals with the second such application.
On 10 August 2023 the tenants made this application for a rehearing on grounds that the landlord did not produce any evidence of their costs and something about having to give up a job in Glenorchy and return to the premises in Christchurch. As I have said previously, there is ample evidence of the landlord’s costs. The rest of the application, frankly, doesn’t make a lot of sense and it certainly is not a ground for a rehearing.
At the rehearing hearing it became clear that the real grounds for the rehearing application are that they were not contacted at the time of the last hearing on 14 June and that they have a partial defence to the landlords’ claims.
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. Discussion and Decision
The tenants insisted that they were ready and waiting for calls on the day of the hearing on 14 June and the calls did not come. I am equally sure that I made the calls and that they were made to the correct telephone numbers. The tenants have not produced any evidence as to why those calls were not connected and I so I must assume that the tenants either didn’t want to take the calls or that they were not prepared for them. Either way, I do not accept that there is any reason to order a rehearing because the tenants were denied the opportunity to attend the hearing.
There is no dispute about the rent arrears. In relation to the rubbish left at the premises, the tenants said that the premises were not provided to them in a reasonably clean and tidy state. That may be the basis for a claim by the tenants against the landlords, but it is not a reason for a rehearing.
The tenants disputed the claim for cleaning costs on the basis that the landlords told them that they intended renovating the premises. Mr Ngo said that his responsibility as the landlord’s agent was to restore the premises to the state that it should have been left in.
Even if the landlord did intend to renovate, the premises should still have been left clean and tidy. As well, the tenants have not produced any evidence that the landlord intended to renovate or has renovated. The landlord may have expressed an intention to renovate but not done so. This is not a reason for a hearing either.
Mr Raymond then listed the claims that the tenants want to make against the landlords. When I asked why the tenants had not filed an application, he said that they had found it very difficult to do so. Yet I note that the tenants did file an application and that I dismissed it because they did not attend the hearing. It refers to the landlords’ failure to maintain the premises and their failure to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy. It also states that the tenants are not seeking compensation.
The real point is the tenants do know how to file an application and they can still do so. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have put that in my order.
There is no reason to order a rehearing in this case. I am satisfied that even if there were a procedural reason for a rehearing, a rehearing would be pointless because the result would be the same. The tenants can make their own application and the claims they have referred to can be dealt with at the hearing of that application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4466420 — Rent arrears at 45 Checketts Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4466420 — Rent arrears at 45 Checketts Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions