What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4564290?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4564290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4564290?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4564290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4564290?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4564290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4564290?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4564290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 12, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 4564290 — Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Alley attended for the landlords. Mr Hewitt attended for the tenants.
On 28 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy, giving possession of the premises to the landlord and for rent arrears.
On 3 July 2023 Mr Hewitt applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing, he was not contacted at the time of the hearing, and he had evidence of rent payments that differed from the landlord’s rent statement.
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
For the following reasons the tenants have failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Hewitt confirmed that he did not contest the landlord’s rent statement. The arrears at the time of the original order were $8,400. They will now exceed $10,000.
Notices of the original hearing were sent to the tenants by post and email. Mr Hewitt said that he was in Samoa at the time, and he didn’t receive notice. He conceded that Ms Matagi received notice, but he said that she did not inform him about the application and hearing. I find that difficult to believe but, in any case, I am satisfied that the notices were properly served and that it is likely that Mr Hewitt received notice, at least by email.
That alone disposes of the application because the grounds of the application have not been made out. As well, the tenants have not paid the rent as required since the order for a rehearing hearing was made on 3 July. The arrears have got worse and there appears to be no prospect of them or the rent being paid. Ordering a rehearing would therefore be pointless and severely prejudicial for the landlord.
Mr Hewitt said that he had contacted WINZ, and they were to contact the landlord to sign them up as a supplier and then pay the arrears and pay the rent from his benefit. He said he had sent a letter from WINZ dated 3 July proving that to the Tribunal at Hutt Valley District Court. There is no such letter on the file.
None of that assists the tenants. To have any chance of getting a rehearing, Mr Hewitt needed to ensure that the arrears were or would be paid and that the rent could be paid as it fell due. He has fallen well short of doing that. Getting a letter from WINZ three weeks ago and hoping for the best is too little too late. Ms Alley confirmed that he had not heard anything from WINZ.
For these reasons the rehearing application is dismissed, and the landlord is free to enforce the order made on 28 June 2023.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Alley attended for the landlords. Mr Hewitt attended for the tenants.
On 28 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy, giving possession of the premises to the landlord and for rent arrears.
On 3 July 2023 Mr Hewitt applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing, he was not contacted at the time of the hearing, and he had evidence of rent payments that differed from the landlord’s rent statement.
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
For the following reasons the tenants have failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Hewitt confirmed that he did not contest the landlord’s rent statement. The arrears at the time of the original order were $8,400. They will now exceed $10,000.
Notices of the original hearing were sent to the tenants by post and email. Mr Hewitt said that he was in Samoa at the time, and he didn’t receive notice. He conceded that Ms Matagi received notice, but he said that she did not inform him about the application and hearing. I find that difficult to believe but, in any case, I am satisfied that the notices were properly served and that it is likely that Mr Hewitt received notice, at least by email.
That alone disposes of the application because the grounds of the application have not been made out. As well, the tenants have not paid the rent as required since the order for a rehearing hearing was made on 3 July. The arrears have got worse and there appears to be no prospect of them or the rent being paid. Ordering a rehearing would therefore be pointless and severely prejudicial for the landlord.
Mr Hewitt said that he had contacted WINZ, and they were to contact the landlord to sign them up as a supplier and then pay the arrears and pay the rent from his benefit. He said he had sent a letter from WINZ dated 3 July proving that to the Tribunal at Hutt Valley District Court. There is no such letter on the file.
None of that assists the tenants. To have any chance of getting a rehearing, Mr Hewitt needed to ensure that the arrears were or would be paid and that the rent could be paid as it fell due. He has fallen well short of doing that. Getting a letter from WINZ three weeks ago and hoping for the best is too little too late. Ms Alley confirmed that he had not heard anything from WINZ.
For these reasons the rehearing application is dismissed, and the landlord is free to enforce the order made on 28 June 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4564290 — Rent arrears at Flat 12, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4564290 — Rent arrears at Flat 12, 370 Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt

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