What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648889?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4648889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9593091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648889?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4648889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9593091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Tyndall Street, Pahiatua, Pahiatua 4910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648889 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The original order made by the Tribunal on 13 September 2023 under application 4648889 stands in full effect and may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

On 13 September 2023, the Tribunal made an order granting the landlord possession of the premises at 86 Tyndall Street, Pahiatua.
On 20 September 2023, Mr Feinstein applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: I did not receive the hearing documents via post until 36 hours before the date of the hearing. My email address was not in the system then; therefore no email was sent to me in advance. Consequently I was unable to submit a defence outside of the 72 hour window for admission. Prejudicially the adjudicator improperly rejected evidence as substantive proof was not lodged. Subsequently new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available to submit.
A hearing was held on 25 October 2023 by teleconference to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the application for rehearing.
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 Mr Feinstein has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: • Mr Feinstein was given a fair opportunity to bring evidence and to reply to the landlord’s evidence in the normal way of hearings in the Tenancy Tribunal. There was no error of procedure. • I am satisfied that Mr Feinstein has no legal claim to the property above that of the landlord. • While Mr Feinstein believes the landlord’s reasons for ending the tenancy can be shown to be incorrect, he has not provided any compelling evidence to support his view. • The main reason Mr Feinstein has applied for a re-hearing is because he is dissatisfied with the decision and wishes to be able to present additional information which he believes could lead to another outcome. However, all of the matters raised in support of the application for re- hearing were raised at the original hearing and any additional evidence was readily available at the time of the last hearing. In particular, he did not refer to anything which would have affected the result. • Overall, the information Mr Feinstein has provided is not 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 Feinstein that would lead me to making a different decision.
Mr Feinstein has accordingly failed to establish a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred and accordingly the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Mr Feinstein sought name suppression as publication would disadvantage him in finding a new tenancy and potentially cause harm through having his name associated adversely with the current Israel-Hamas conflict.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for Mr Feinstein having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) RTA. I do not consider Mr Feinstein would be significantly disadvantaged or that there would be disproportionate detriment or an imminent threat of harm to him. Mr Feinstein has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertions. I also do not consider that Mr Feinstein’s circumstances outweigh the public interest in his name being published.
I therefore decline to make any order for suppression or non-publication.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The original order made by the Tribunal on 13 September 2023 under application 4648889 stands in full effect and may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

On 13 September 2023, the Tribunal made an order granting the landlord possession of the premises at 86 Tyndall Street, Pahiatua.
On 20 September 2023, Mr Feinstein applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: I did not receive the hearing documents via post until 36 hours before the date of the hearing. My email address was not in the system then; therefore no email was sent to me in advance. Consequently I was unable to submit a defence outside of the 72 hour window for admission. Prejudicially the adjudicator improperly rejected evidence as substantive proof was not lodged. Subsequently new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available to submit.
A hearing was held on 25 October 2023 by teleconference to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the application for rehearing.
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 Mr Feinstein has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: • Mr Feinstein was given a fair opportunity to bring evidence and to reply to the landlord’s evidence in the normal way of hearings in the Tenancy Tribunal. There was no error of procedure. • I am satisfied that Mr Feinstein has no legal claim to the property above that of the landlord. • While Mr Feinstein believes the landlord’s reasons for ending the tenancy can be shown to be incorrect, he has not provided any compelling evidence to support his view. • The main reason Mr Feinstein has applied for a re-hearing is because he is dissatisfied with the decision and wishes to be able to present additional information which he believes could lead to another outcome. However, all of the matters raised in support of the application for re- hearing were raised at the original hearing and any additional evidence was readily available at the time of the last hearing. In particular, he did not refer to anything which would have affected the result. • Overall, the information Mr Feinstein has provided is not 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 Feinstein that would lead me to making a different decision.
Mr Feinstein has accordingly failed to establish a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred and accordingly the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Mr Feinstein sought name suppression as publication would disadvantage him in finding a new tenancy and potentially cause harm through having his name associated adversely with the current Israel-Hamas conflict.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for Mr Feinstein having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) RTA. I do not consider Mr Feinstein would be significantly disadvantaged or that there would be disproportionate detriment or an imminent threat of harm to him. Mr Feinstein has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertions. I also do not consider that Mr Feinstein’s circumstances outweigh the public interest in his name being published.
I therefore decline to make any order for suppression or non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648889 — Tenancy dispute at 86 Tyndall Street, Pahiatua, Pahiatua 4910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648889 — Tenancy dispute at 86 Tyndall Street, Pahiatua, Pahiatua 4910

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