What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4684409?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4684409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10625056-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4684409?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4684409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10625056-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 School Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684409 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
On 22 February 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ application (dated 23/09/2023) to have the rent increase from 1 October 2023 cancelled.
The reasons I gave at that hearing included my finding that the tenants had not produced information about rent prices for similar properties; the three properties that the tenants provided information on as comparable, were too dissimilar to their own rental property to offer reliable guidance on setting the market rate for their own property. Because of that the tenants had failed to prove their case.
On 01 March 2024 Satya May, Bellita Misha and Kiel Noble applied for a rehearing on the grounds that new evidence relating to the original application has become available.
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?

This is not an application to set market as of mid-2024; this is an application to have the rent increase that was proposed to take effect from 1 October 2023 cancelled because it is excessive.
In today’s hearing the tenants stated that the rental listings that were produced in support of their application at the hearing on 22 February 2024 suffered for not being similar properties, because they limited their search to the same suburb they lived in.
Information on similar properties in neighbouring or close suburbs was available on 22 February 2024, but wasn’t found because of the limits in the tenants’ search.
The information that the tenants seek to adduce now are three Trademe listings; two from February 2024, and one from June 2024.
In my view this is not information that is sufficient to justify granting a rehearing and there are two reasons for this.
The first is that one of these listings dates from before 22 February 2024 and was therefore available at the original hearing. Because it was available at the original hearing, it is not new evidence.
The second reason is that the other two listings date from after the hearing took place. There is therefore a temporal proximity issue whereby this is not information that was not available at the first hearing, it is information that was not in existence at the first hearing.
I am prepared to accept that information regarding market rents in February 2024 may still be relevant to rent prices in October 2023, (four to five months earlier), but only just. The Auckland rental market is not static and prices fluctuate constantly. Information on the Auckland rental market from June 2024 is too far removed from the date of the rent increase, 1 October 2023 to be sufficiently relevant to the application.
I am not persuaded that the new information that the tenants seek to provide is new evidence that was not available at the original hearing such as to justify the granting of a rehearing, and if it is new evidence, I am not persuaded it is of sufficient relevance that it would affect the outcome.
For these reasons I am not persuaded that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred, and the grounds for a rehearing are not made out.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
On 22 February 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ application (dated 23/09/2023) to have the rent increase from 1 October 2023 cancelled.
The reasons I gave at that hearing included my finding that the tenants had not produced information about rent prices for similar properties; the three properties that the tenants provided information on as comparable, were too dissimilar to their own rental property to offer reliable guidance on setting the market rate for their own property. Because of that the tenants had failed to prove their case.
On 01 March 2024 Satya May, Bellita Misha and Kiel Noble applied for a rehearing on the grounds that new evidence relating to the original application has become available.
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?

This is not an application to set market as of mid-2024; this is an application to have the rent increase that was proposed to take effect from 1 October 2023 cancelled because it is excessive.
In today’s hearing the tenants stated that the rental listings that were produced in support of their application at the hearing on 22 February 2024 suffered for not being similar properties, because they limited their search to the same suburb they lived in.
Information on similar properties in neighbouring or close suburbs was available on 22 February 2024, but wasn’t found because of the limits in the tenants’ search.
The information that the tenants seek to adduce now are three Trademe listings; two from February 2024, and one from June 2024.
In my view this is not information that is sufficient to justify granting a rehearing and there are two reasons for this.
The first is that one of these listings dates from before 22 February 2024 and was therefore available at the original hearing. Because it was available at the original hearing, it is not new evidence.
The second reason is that the other two listings date from after the hearing took place. There is therefore a temporal proximity issue whereby this is not information that was not available at the first hearing, it is information that was not in existence at the first hearing.
I am prepared to accept that information regarding market rents in February 2024 may still be relevant to rent prices in October 2023, (four to five months earlier), but only just. The Auckland rental market is not static and prices fluctuate constantly. Information on the Auckland rental market from June 2024 is too far removed from the date of the rent increase, 1 October 2023 to be sufficiently relevant to the application.
I am not persuaded that the new information that the tenants seek to provide is new evidence that was not available at the original hearing such as to justify the granting of a rehearing, and if it is new evidence, I am not persuaded it is of sufficient relevance that it would affect the outcome.
For these reasons I am not persuaded that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred, and the grounds for a rehearing are not made out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684409 — Tenancy dispute at 33 School Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684409 — Tenancy dispute at 33 School Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions