What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4570530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4570530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570530?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9305346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4570530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4570530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570530?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9305346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9C Quinton Place, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570530 — Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s Order dated 3 July 2023 stands and can be enforced.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Dyer attended a hearing this morning. Mrs Staples did not attend.
On 3 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and terminating the tenancy.
On 7 July 2023, Mrs Staples applied for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. 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.
Given the background this application, it is also useful to record the Tribunal’s role in resolving disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.” Mrs Staples’ Rehearing Application
On 7 July 2023 Mrs Staples applied for a rehearing of the decision to terminate the tenancy and award rent arrears. The grounds for her application can be summarised as follows: a. Inability to attend hearing and present counterclaims; b. Medical evidence in support of adjournment was ignored by Tribunal; c. The Tribunal’s decision was aggressive and biased; d. Difficulty in finding alternative accommodation; and e. Landlord incorrectly identified.
I have considered each of those grounds. In doing so, I have re-read and considered all of the documentation submitted by Mr and Mrs Staples in relation to this proceeding. I have also considered the submissions made by Mr and Mrs Dyer at the hearing today.
Before addressing each of the issues, I set out the progress of this proceeding. Progress of Proceeding
The first hearing was on 15 June 2023. Mr Staples attended by telephone as Mrs Staples representative. He acknowledged the rent owed and said that the family intended to move on 1 July 2023. He also said that he intended to pay the arrears (from a family inheritance) before the end of June.
The hearing was adjourned to a date after 1 July 2023 to allow the Staples time to move, pay the arrears and consider the application for termination of the tenancy. At the hearing on 15 June, Mr Staples was advised that, given the extent of the arrears (13 weeks), termination of the tenancy was almost inevitable if the family had not moved by the next hearing.
The Staples family did not move or pay the arrears before the next hearing on 3 July 2023. Mrs Staples did not submit a cross-application. Instead, the Tribunal received an email from Mrs Staples explaining her health situation and making allegations against the landlord.
On 30 June 2023 Mr Staples advised that Mrs Staples could not attend the hearing on 3 July 2023, as she had Covid-19. He provided medical evidence. While the certificate advises that Mrs Staples is unable to attend and lists several medical issues, it makes no mention of Covid-19.
Mr Staples said that he would attend the hearing as Mrs Staples’ representative but could not attend in person. His request to attend by telephone was granted.
On Sunday 2 July 2023 Mr Staples applied for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 9:30am on Monday, on the basis that he had Covid-19. No medical evidence or evidence of a positive test result was provided. The adjournment request was declined, and Mr Staples was advised that he could still attend the hearing by telephone. The call to Mr Staples was not answered but went to voicemail.
I made an order terminating the tenancy and awarding the landlord rent arrears of $6,220.00 on 3 July 2023.
Mrs Staples applied for a rehearing on 7 July 2023. I directed that the application for rehearing be set down for hearing.
On 17 July 2023, Mr Staples provided documentation regarding the rehearing application, including a medical certificate advising that Mrs Staples should be fit to attend a hearing from 31 July 2023. Mrs Staples’ rehearing application was scheduled for hearing on 17 August 2023, consistent with that certificate.
However, 2 days before the hearing the Tribunal received a further adjournment request on the basis that Mrs Staples is medically unfit to attend but should be fit after 14 September 2023.
The adjournment request was declined on the basis that Mr Staples had been appointed as Mrs Staples representative and could attend on her behalf. The Tribunal then received an adjournment request on the basis that Mr Staples was medically unfit to attend.
The adjournment request was declined, and Mrs Staples was advised that she could make written submissions in support of her rehearing application, which she did, albeit to oppose the refusal to grant an adjournment. See s94(4) RTA – The Tribunal may regulate its own procedure in such manner as it thinks fit. Inability to attend and present counterclaims
It is important for Mrs Staples to understand that this proceeding is an application for termination of the tenancy and for rent arrears only. Once the landlord has established that the rent was more than 21 days in arrears at the date of the application, I must grant either a final or conditional termination order (see s55 RTA).
The landlord has established that rent was well over 21 days in arrears.
Mr Staples, as Mrs Staples’ representative, acknowledged the arrears. In fact, he said he intended to pay them before the end of June.
Mrs Staples did not dispute the landlord’s assessment of the rent in her communications to the Tribunal. She said that she wanted to challenge the rent arrears claimed but did not provide any basis for that. Rather, she attempts to explain the non-payment of rent by reference to the landlord’s alleged conduct.
A tenant cannot unilaterally stop paying rent because it has an issue with the landlord or the property. If a tenant has claims they wish the Tribunal to consider, they must make an application and prove their claims in the usual way. Mrs Staples has not done that.
There is no “counterclaim” or cross-application before the Tribunal. Medical Evidence Ignored
The medical evidence was considered and, where appropriate, allowances were made to accommodate Mrs Staples’ requests. Representation was granted based on the medical evidence. Requests to attend by telephone were also granted. Mrs Staples was allowed to provide written submissions in lieu of attendance at the hearing today.
Against that, the Tribunal also has to balance the landlord’s interest in having its application heard and resolved. The Tribunal cannot indefinitely grant rolling adjournments on a monthly basis, as the Staples appear to expect from the Medical Certificates provided.
Viewed objectively, Mr and Mrs Staples have had a reasonable opportunity to arrange a representative for Mrs Staples if she and Mr Staples are unable to participate in the proceedings.
For completeness, I also note that there was no medical or other evidence to corroborate Mr Staples’ request for an adjournment before the 3 July hearing. Tribunal’s Decision Aggressive and Biased
The RTA is clear that if rent is at least 21 days in arrears, the Tribunal must grant either a final or conditional termination order. That was explained to Mr Staples at the hearing on 15 June 2023.
Mr and Mrs Staples were given the opportunity to move from the premises on 1 July, as was their stated intention, and to pay the rent arrears before the hearing was reconvened.
The Tribunal granted requests for representation and attendance by telephone. I read and considered the documentation submitted by Mr and Mrs Staples in response to the landlord’s application and determined that it was not relevant to an application for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears.
The only evidential question arising from the landlord’s application was whether the rent was 21 days (or more) in arrears. Answering that question does not require a lengthy decision or discussion.
It would not have been appropriate for me to delve into issues which were not properly before me by way of an application or cross-application. In this regard, I note that both parties raised issues and complaints against the other that were outside of the scope of the landlord’s application. I did not consider or address either party’s complaints. Difficulty in Finding Alternative Accommodation
While it is distressing for Mrs Staples to experience difficulty in finding alternative premises, that is not a valid ground for rehearing. Nor is it a valid consideration when determining an application under s55 RTA. Correct Landlord
Mrs Staples objects to dealing with Mrs Dyer. Again, this not a valid ground for rehearing.
For completeness I note that Mr and Mrs Dyer are both named as landlords in the tenancy agreement. It does not matter that only Mr Dyer signed the tenancy agreement. Mrs Dyer is also a landlord. It is for Mr and Mrs Dyer to allocate tasks related to the tenancy as between themselves. It is not for Mrs Staples to dictate who she wishes to deal with. Outcome
For the reasons set out above, Mrs Staples has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The stay for proceeding which was granted pending determination of this rehearing application has now lapsed.
The Tribunal’s decision of 3 July 2023 is effective and can be enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570530 — Rent arrears at 9C Quinton Place, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570530 — Rent arrears at 9C Quinton Place, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

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