What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4633289?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4633289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633289?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9358243-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4633289?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4633289?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633289?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9358243-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

410 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4633289 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant application for a rehearing. The tenant had a support person from a social agency attend.

The hearing was conducted via teleconference.

On 16 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order for possession to return to the landlord after the tenancy ended but the tenant remained at the premises.

On 18 August 2023, Lisa Marie Galloway applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she could not take the call at the time of the hearing as she was at the doctor at that time. She added in the rehearing application that she had “applied for many rental properties, however [I] have been unsuccessful in my applications. I have tried to get emergency housing, but unsuccessful.” She added that she has no other accommodation and needs more time to move.

The Tribunal acknowledges the challenges the tenant faces, but also the extensions provided to date by the landlord since the initial tenancy end date of 2 April 2023. As noted in the first order at [3]: “This extension was at some cost and difficulty for themselves [the landlords]. It would be inequitable for this situation to continue.”

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?

For the following reasons Lisa Marie Galloway has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. I believe adequate service had taken place before the first hearing and the tenant should have been aware of it or requested an adjournment before the hearing. Reminders were sent to her two days before, and on the morning of, the hearing. These were sent via phone text and email. The number and email address used are as confirmed in the rehearing application as well as used successfully in the call to her yesterday. b. The landlord application sought a possession order. There was evidence of the prior notice to terminate, and the landlord extension provided at the request of the tenant at that time. In the absence of any technical flaw in these there is little discretion available in s 64 Residential Tenancy Act 1986 to refuse a possession order once entitlement to it is established c. I see no evidence since the hearing, nor did I hear any tenant submission yesterday, that makes me believe the order of 16 August 2023 should be quashed and a rehearing ordered.

The tenant raised other matters that may form a tenant application if she wants but they have no bearing on the appropriateness of the possession order as made.

For the above reasons the request for a rehearing is dismissed. Any stay on enforcement is lifted, effective from 9am Monday 4 September 2023.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Any stay on proceedings of the order dated 16 August 2023 is removed effective 9am Monday 4 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant application for a rehearing. The tenant had a support person from a social agency attend.
The hearing was conducted via teleconference.
On 16 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order for possession to return to the landlord after the tenancy ended but the tenant remained at the premises.
On 18 August 2023, Lisa Marie Galloway applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she could not take the call at the time of the hearing as she was at the doctor at that time. She added in the rehearing application that she had “applied for many rental properties, however [I] have been unsuccessful in my applications. I have tried to get emergency housing, but unsuccessful.” She added that she has no other accommodation and needs more time to move.
The Tribunal acknowledges the challenges the tenant faces, but also the extensions provided to date by the landlord since the initial tenancy end date of 2 April 2023. As noted in the first order at [3]: “This extension was at some cost and difficulty for themselves [the landlords]. It would be inequitable for this situation to continue.”
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?

For the following reasons Lisa Marie Galloway has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. I believe adequate service had taken place before the first hearing and the tenant should have been aware of it or requested an adjournment before the hearing. Reminders were sent to her two days before, and on the morning of, the hearing. These were sent via phone text and email. The number and email address used are as confirmed in the rehearing application as well as used successfully in the call to her yesterday. b. The landlord application sought a possession order. There was evidence of the prior notice to terminate, and the landlord extension provided at the request of the tenant at that time. In the absence of any technical flaw in these there is little discretion available in s 64 Residential Tenancy Act 1986 to refuse a possession order once entitlement to it is established c. I see no evidence since the hearing, nor did I hear any tenant submission yesterday, that makes me believe the order of 16 August 2023 should be quashed and a rehearing ordered.
The tenant raised other matters that may form a tenant application if she wants but they have no bearing on the appropriateness of the possession order as made.
For the above reasons the request for a rehearing is dismissed. Any stay on enforcement is lifted, effective from 9am Monday 4 September 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633289 — Tenancy dispute at 410 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633289 — Tenancy dispute at 410 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions