What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615030?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9294481-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615030?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9294481-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 47 Wynyard Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615030 — Tenancy dispute

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 decision of 18 July 2023 is effective, and can be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing hearing which was held by telephone.
On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order granting possession of the premises to the landlord.
Mr Reid applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had been unable to present evidence at the hearing, he wanted an in person hearing and the decision to grant possession to the landlord was unfair and would cause extreme hardship to Mr Reid.
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”. In this context, that usually means that 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.

Should a Rehearing be Granted?

For the following reasons Mr Reid has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Reid’s submissions in relation to the rehearing were a repetition of the evidence he gave at the first hearing, in July. He provided some documentary evidence prior to the rehearing hearing relevant to his health and circumstances. That evidence was available and could have been provided prior to the first hearing. More significantly, it is not evidence which I could consider when determining if a possession order should be granted.
Mr Reid maintains that granting a possession order is unfair and unjust in circumstances where there is a housing crisis, and it is difficult to find alternative accommodation. This has become a matter of principle for Mr Reid.
As I explained in the 18 July decision and at the hearing today, the availability of alternative accommodation is not something I can consider. 1
Section 64 Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) provides that, subject to subsection (2) (which is not relevant in this case), “on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person”.
The landlord established that it was entitled to possession of the premises, it follows that I was required to grant a possession order.
Mr Reid claimed that the decision was unfair and there has been an injustice because he has not done anything wrong. There was no suggestion that he had. Rather, the landlord established a valid ground for issuing a termination notice, within the statutory framework. 2
Mr Reid again reiterated that the hearing should be in person and in Auckland. I do not accept that submission. Both parties presented their arguments clearly 1 See Longhurst and Longhurst v Rouch and Mrkusic [2022] NZDC 2142 - Being unable to find an alternate tenancy was not a ground to stay a possession order in circumstances where an appeal had no prospect of success. 2 In this regard, I note Mr Reid’s comment at the hearing this morning that he “is sure the landlord has plans for this place.” and cogently at the telephone hearings. Again, the state of the Auckland housing market is not something the Tribunal can take into account when considering an application under s64 RTA.
The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay of proceedings that was granted pending the outcome of this rehearing application, has now lapsed and is not effective. The Tribunal’s decision of 18 July 2023 granting possession to the landlord is effective and can be enforced.

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 decision of 18 July 2023 is effective, and can be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing hearing which was held by telephone.
On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order granting possession of the premises to the landlord.
Mr Reid applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had been unable to present evidence at the hearing, he wanted an in person hearing and the decision to grant possession to the landlord was unfair and would cause extreme hardship to Mr Reid.
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”. In this context, that usually means that 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.

Should a Rehearing be Granted?

For the following reasons Mr Reid has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Reid’s submissions in relation to the rehearing were a repetition of the evidence he gave at the first hearing, in July. He provided some documentary evidence prior to the rehearing hearing relevant to his health and circumstances. That evidence was available and could have been provided prior to the first hearing. More significantly, it is not evidence which I could consider when determining if a possession order should be granted.
Mr Reid maintains that granting a possession order is unfair and unjust in circumstances where there is a housing crisis, and it is difficult to find alternative accommodation. This has become a matter of principle for Mr Reid.
As I explained in the 18 July decision and at the hearing today, the availability of alternative accommodation is not something I can consider. 1
Section 64 Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) provides that, subject to subsection (2) (which is not relevant in this case), “on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person”.
The landlord established that it was entitled to possession of the premises, it follows that I was required to grant a possession order.
Mr Reid claimed that the decision was unfair and there has been an injustice because he has not done anything wrong. There was no suggestion that he had. Rather, the landlord established a valid ground for issuing a termination notice, within the statutory framework. 2
Mr Reid again reiterated that the hearing should be in person and in Auckland. I do not accept that submission. Both parties presented their arguments clearly 1 See Longhurst and Longhurst v Rouch and Mrkusic [2022] NZDC 2142 - Being unable to find an alternate tenancy was not a ground to stay a possession order in circumstances where an appeal had no prospect of success. 2 In this regard, I note Mr Reid’s comment at the hearing this morning that he “is sure the landlord has plans for this place.” and cogently at the telephone hearings. Again, the state of the Auckland housing market is not something the Tribunal can take into account when considering an application under s64 RTA.
The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay of proceedings that was granted pending the outcome of this rehearing application, has now lapsed and is not effective. The Tribunal’s decision of 18 July 2023 granting possession to the landlord is effective and can be enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615030 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 7, 47 Wynyard Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615030 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 7, 47 Wynyard Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a Rehearing be Granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a Rehearing be Granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions