What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695170?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4695170?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10173109-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695170?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4695170?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10173109-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695170 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 April 2024 to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.
On 9 January 2024, I amended my earlier order of 5 December 2023 and replaced it with an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $1,627.58, being rent arrears to 11 April 2023 of $1,607.14 and the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing on grounds that the rent arrears calculation is incorrect and that his 2 weeks bond of $900.00 has not been accounted for.
The tenant repeated his assertion that he had been in advance in his fortnightly rent payment the whole way through his tenancy and on his vacation of the premises on 11 April 2023, no rent is owing.
The tenant submitted in his rehearing application that he paid 2 weeks’ bond and 2 weeks’ rent in advance in cash on 10 March 2022. The tenant says that the landlord would not have let him move into the premises if he had not paid a bond.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are no new evidence nor materials adduced which might affect the outcome of the previous hearings and final order of the Tribunal dated 9 January 2024.
The tenant is clearly unhappy with the decision, but this by itself is insufficient for the grant of a rehearing.
No evidence has been adduced to show that a bond had been paid. The landlord’s evidence that no bond had been received on 10 March 2022 (as alleged by the tenant) or at all is supported by the email dated 7 January 2022 from the landlord to the tenant which states that “at this stage we will leave the bond to be arranged with Oxygen when they take over the tenancy. It is standard to have a four week bond in a managed property - $1,800 - so you could start to get this amount ready for the change in management.”.
The fact that the first weeks’ rent in advance was paid by bank transfer by the tenant on 10 March 2022 directly contradicts the tenant’s assertion that he had on 10 March 2022 paid both the first two weeks’ rent and bond in cash.
Further, and most tellingly, in his earlier application filed against the landlord under application 4532509, the tenant stated on the application form dated 22 March 2023 that no bond had been paid.
At the hearing of the tenant’s application before adjudicator T Lee-Lewis in September 2023, no bond was ever claimed by the tenant.
In the order dated 24 September 2024, adjudicator Lee-Lewis stated: The tenancy commenced in January 2022. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties (hereafter referred to as the tenant and landlord), but there was an oral one that the tenant would pay $450.00 rent per week which he did for over a year.
The tenant claimed the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: a. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement – section 13(4) RTA b. Failure to provide healthy homes information – section 45(1AD) RTA c. Failure to comply with the HHS – section 45(1)(bb) RTA d. Failure to repair and maintain – section 45(1A) RTA e. Breach of quiet enjoyment – section 38 RTA
It is highly unlikely that the tenant would not have also claimed the return of his bond in the first instance alongside the above claims before adjudicator Lee- Lewis had he actually paid a bond to the landlord!
I therefore find that there has been no bond paid by the tenant at all. No credible evidence had been submitted by the tenant apart from a bare assertion of a bond having been paid in support of his rehearing application. I have no hesitation in concluding that the tenant has been most economical with the truth in this instance.
Turning now to the tenant’s insistence that his rent had not been in arrears but actually in advance, the rent summary shows rent being paid in advance until 17 March 2023 where the tenant’s final fortnightly payment of $900.00 was made on 7 March 2023. No rent was paid for the period of 18 March 2023 to 11 April 2023; the rent arrears for this period remains $1,607.14.
The tenant’s repeated but ultimately bare assertion that he is not in rent arrears and that his rent has been incorrectly calculated by the Tribunal do not constitute grounds for a rehearing.
At best, the tenant’s statements are really complaints about correctness of the decision which should be dealt with by way of appeal.
There is nothing before me which affects the outcome of the order of 9 January 2024.
The tenant’s assertions of having paid a bond and not being in arrears remain mere allegations.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, all the material points relied upon by the tenant in the previous hearings and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, addressed and determined, albeit there were against the tenant in the proceedings.
There remains nothing before the Tribunal that could have affected the outcome of the previous hearings.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 April 2024 to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.
On 9 January 2024, I amended my earlier order of 5 December 2023 and replaced it with an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $1,627.58, being rent arrears to 11 April 2023 of $1,607.14 and the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing on grounds that the rent arrears calculation is incorrect and that his 2 weeks bond of $900.00 has not been accounted for.
The tenant repeated his assertion that he had been in advance in his fortnightly rent payment the whole way through his tenancy and on his vacation of the premises on 11 April 2023, no rent is owing.
The tenant submitted in his rehearing application that he paid 2 weeks’ bond and 2 weeks’ rent in advance in cash on 10 March 2022. The tenant says that the landlord would not have let him move into the premises if he had not paid a bond.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are no new evidence nor materials adduced which might affect the outcome of the previous hearings and final order of the Tribunal dated 9 January 2024.
The tenant is clearly unhappy with the decision, but this by itself is insufficient for the grant of a rehearing.
No evidence has been adduced to show that a bond had been paid. The landlord’s evidence that no bond had been received on 10 March 2022 (as alleged by the tenant) or at all is supported by the email dated 7 January 2022 from the landlord to the tenant which states that “at this stage we will leave the bond to be arranged with Oxygen when they take over the tenancy. It is standard to have a four week bond in a managed property - $1,800 - so you could start to get this amount ready for the change in management.”.
The fact that the first weeks’ rent in advance was paid by bank transfer by the tenant on 10 March 2022 directly contradicts the tenant’s assertion that he had on 10 March 2022 paid both the first two weeks’ rent and bond in cash.
Further, and most tellingly, in his earlier application filed against the landlord under application 4532509, the tenant stated on the application form dated 22 March 2023 that no bond had been paid.
At the hearing of the tenant’s application before adjudicator T Lee-Lewis in September 2023, no bond was ever claimed by the tenant.
In the order dated 24 September 2024, adjudicator Lee-Lewis stated: The tenancy commenced in January 2022. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties (hereafter referred to as the tenant and landlord), but there was an oral one that the tenant would pay $450.00 rent per week which he did for over a year.
The tenant claimed the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: a. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement – section 13(4) RTA b. Failure to provide healthy homes information – section 45(1AD) RTA c. Failure to comply with the HHS – section 45(1)(bb) RTA d. Failure to repair and maintain – section 45(1A) RTA e. Breach of quiet enjoyment – section 38 RTA
It is highly unlikely that the tenant would not have also claimed the return of his bond in the first instance alongside the above claims before adjudicator Lee- Lewis had he actually paid a bond to the landlord!
I therefore find that there has been no bond paid by the tenant at all. No credible evidence had been submitted by the tenant apart from a bare assertion of a bond having been paid in support of his rehearing application. I have no hesitation in concluding that the tenant has been most economical with the truth in this instance.
Turning now to the tenant’s insistence that his rent had not been in arrears but actually in advance, the rent summary shows rent being paid in advance until 17 March 2023 where the tenant’s final fortnightly payment of $900.00 was made on 7 March 2023. No rent was paid for the period of 18 March 2023 to 11 April 2023; the rent arrears for this period remains $1,607.14.
The tenant’s repeated but ultimately bare assertion that he is not in rent arrears and that his rent has been incorrectly calculated by the Tribunal do not constitute grounds for a rehearing.
At best, the tenant’s statements are really complaints about correctness of the decision which should be dealt with by way of appeal.
There is nothing before me which affects the outcome of the order of 9 January 2024.
The tenant’s assertions of having paid a bond and not being in arrears remain mere allegations.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, all the material points relied upon by the tenant in the previous hearings and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, addressed and determined, albeit there were against the tenant in the proceedings.
There remains nothing before the Tribunal that could have affected the outcome of the previous hearings.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695170 — Rent arrears at Room 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695170 — Rent arrears at Room 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions