What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475780?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4475780?

Contribution To Legal Fees: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Per Week From 15/11/2022-11/05/2023: $11,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475780?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597781-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475780?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4475780?

Contribution To Legal Fees: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Per Week From 15/11/2022-11/05/2023: $11,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475780?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597781-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4475780 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4475780 — net $12,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
per week from 15/11/2022-11/05/2023	$11,250.00	per week from 15/11/2022-11/05/2023
Contribution to legal fees	$1,000.00	Contribution to legal fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,270.44

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay is lifted. The order of the Tribunal (dated 11 May 2023) under application 4475780 terminating the tenancy of Kandasamy Bala Manickavasagar at 8 Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland, stands and may be enforced immediately.
This Order amends Order 3 of the Tribunal’s Order of 11 May 2023 under application 4475780. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges is dismissed. Order 3 should read Kandasamy Bala Manickavasagar must pay Salahuddin Khan $12,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below
This Order is to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s order dated 11 May 2023.

Reasons

On 11 May 2023, the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Manickavasagar’s tenancy on the basis that rent was at least 21 days in arrears when the landlord filed the application. The Tribunal awarded $12,780.44 to the landlord which consisted of: $11,250.00 for rent arrears, $510.00 for unpaid water charges, $1,000.00 towards legal costs and $20.44 for reimbursement of the filing fee:
On 25 May 2023, Mr Manickavasagar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he missed the hearing due to treatment and a leg injury. He asserts he does not owe rent to the landlord as the landlord agreed that he can provide services in lieu of rent and that it was the landlord who owed him money. He also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s (and the landlord’s agents) actions including aggressive and intimidating behaviour. He referred to incidents involving the Police, an altercation and his power being disconnected.
The landlord opposes Mr Manickavasagar’s rehearing application and strongly denies there was any agreement for him to provide services in lieu of rent and the other allegations made. The landlord argues that Mr Manickavasagar’s application is misconstrued and does not reflect the true circumstances.
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?

I have given careful consideration to the matters raised by Mr Manickavasagar. For the following reasons Mr Manickavasagar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • Missing a hearing is not a ground in itself for a rehearing. Mr Manickavasagar must show that the order made by the Tribunal on 11 May 2023 is substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • Mr Manickavasagar argues the rent arrears claimed by the landlord is not justified due to an agreement he had with the landlord regarding payment for services he has provided to the landlord. However, this was disputed by the landlord and the evidence provided in support did not sufficiently corroborate Mr Manickavasagar’s view. • I am not satisfied that an arguable case for rehearing is evident from the rehearing application, Mr Manickavasagar’s oral presentation and the new information provided in support, or on review of the original decision of the Tribunal. • There was no procedural unfairness or defect in the hearing process. • Overall, the information Mr Manickavasagar has provided does not show that the order made by the Tribunal on 11 May 2023 was wrong. Nor is it sufficient to show that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred or is likely to occur. There is nothing in the rehearing application or other grounds relied on by Mr Manickavasagar that would lead me to making a different decision.
Mr Manickavasagar has failed to establish a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred. Accordingly. the application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay is lifted. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges
I note new information had come to light regarding the landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges.
I am satisfied there was no separate water meter or check meter for the tenancy and consequently Mr Manickavasagar was not legally liable for the water charges. The claim for unpaid water charges must therefore be dismissed and the original order is amended as noted above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4475780 — net $12,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
per week from 15/11/2022-11/05/2023	$11,250.00	per week from 15/11/2022-11/05/2023
Contribution to legal fees	$1,000.00	Contribution to legal fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,270.44

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay is lifted. The order of the Tribunal (dated 11 May 2023) under application 4475780 terminating the tenancy of Kandasamy Bala Manickavasagar at 8 Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland, stands and may be enforced immediately.
This Order amends Order 3 of the Tribunal’s Order of 11 May 2023 under application 4475780. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges is dismissed. Order 3 should read Kandasamy Bala Manickavasagar must pay Salahuddin Khan $12,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below
This Order is to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s order dated 11 May 2023.

Reasons

On 11 May 2023, the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Manickavasagar’s tenancy on the basis that rent was at least 21 days in arrears when the landlord filed the application. The Tribunal awarded $12,780.44 to the landlord which consisted of: $11,250.00 for rent arrears, $510.00 for unpaid water charges, $1,000.00 towards legal costs and $20.44 for reimbursement of the filing fee:
On 25 May 2023, Mr Manickavasagar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he missed the hearing due to treatment and a leg injury. He asserts he does not owe rent to the landlord as the landlord agreed that he can provide services in lieu of rent and that it was the landlord who owed him money. He also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s (and the landlord’s agents) actions including aggressive and intimidating behaviour. He referred to incidents involving the Police, an altercation and his power being disconnected.
The landlord opposes Mr Manickavasagar’s rehearing application and strongly denies there was any agreement for him to provide services in lieu of rent and the other allegations made. The landlord argues that Mr Manickavasagar’s application is misconstrued and does not reflect the true circumstances.
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?

I have given careful consideration to the matters raised by Mr Manickavasagar. For the following reasons Mr Manickavasagar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • Missing a hearing is not a ground in itself for a rehearing. Mr Manickavasagar must show that the order made by the Tribunal on 11 May 2023 is substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • Mr Manickavasagar argues the rent arrears claimed by the landlord is not justified due to an agreement he had with the landlord regarding payment for services he has provided to the landlord. However, this was disputed by the landlord and the evidence provided in support did not sufficiently corroborate Mr Manickavasagar’s view. • I am not satisfied that an arguable case for rehearing is evident from the rehearing application, Mr Manickavasagar’s oral presentation and the new information provided in support, or on review of the original decision of the Tribunal. • There was no procedural unfairness or defect in the hearing process. • Overall, the information Mr Manickavasagar has provided does not show that the order made by the Tribunal on 11 May 2023 was wrong. Nor is it sufficient to show that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred or is likely to occur. There is nothing in the rehearing application or other grounds relied on by Mr Manickavasagar that would lead me to making a different decision.
Mr Manickavasagar has failed to establish a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred. Accordingly. the application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay is lifted. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges
I note new information had come to light regarding the landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges.
I am satisfied there was no separate water meter or check meter for the tenancy and consequently Mr Manickavasagar was not legally liable for the water charges. The claim for unpaid water charges must therefore be dismissed and the original order is amended as noted above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475780 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475780 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions