What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4711005?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4711005?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711005?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404984-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4711005?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4711005?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711005?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404984-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Warwick Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4711005 — Healthy homes

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing application hearing.
On 5 November, the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy and dismissing the tenants claims for retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry.
On 12 November 2024, Gael Joy Baldock applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: - That since the hearing, the tenant has discovered further evidence about a mediator’s report, -That during the hearing on 5 November 2024 the landlord announced that they had a new house which was not known to her. -That the landlord sought 2-4 weeks to arrange alternative accommodation and assist with moving. -That there was new evidence relating to the history of the disputes between the parties about maintenance. -That the support and connection with her community was not taken into account. -That she was not focused on the “termination” claim by the landlord as she believed it was just a threat for her to comply with their access and inspection requests.
The landlord has responded to the grounds claimed for a rehearing. I am going to include their response in this order, as I accept, they were not given an adequate opportunity to response to Ms Baldock claims at the rehearing hearing.
The landlord’s response is: -The landlord acknowledges that there has been a history with this property and maintenance issues. The tenant had the opportunity to go to the Tenancy Tribunal at any time to obtain a work order for maintenance prior to the landlord’s application for access. -The tenant clearly has considerable community support, however that is not relevant to the application for a rehearing. -The landlord does not accept that any of the new evidence is relevant to their application for termination of the tenancy and possession of the property. -The landlord does not accept that their application was retaliatory and that any of her new evidence provides a reason to assume otherwise. -The landlord does not accept that the evidence provided warrants a rehearing. -All the landlord needed at the start of this process was for the tenant to allow access to complete the Healthy Homes assessment and work to comply with their obligations as a landlord. -The tenant would not allow the landlord access and the evidence provided and given at the previous hearings reflected this.
After Ms Baldock filed her rehearing application, I asked for further specific information before I make a final determination of the rehearing application. That information was : -A) Can Ms Baldock please provide me with any further evidence relating to the termination that she would have has available to her at the last hearing had she realised this was going to be the ultimate outcome of the hearing. -B) Could Ms Baldock please advise how would this information have affected the evidence heard during all the hearings relating to failing to provide access to the landlord for inspections, Healthy Homes Assessment, and maintenance. -C) The support letters provided by Ms Baldock for the rehearing application, how would this assist in determining whether there should be a rehearing of this application? -D) Ms Baldock refers to new evidence throughout the rehearing application, could she please set out what the new evidence is?
Ms Baldock’s response to these questions were: -A) There were many emails provided. -B) Ms Baldock has provided countless emails relating to issues in the past 10 years relating to painting issues, damage to sculptures, removal of hazarded waste and scaffolding. -C) These letters show her deep connection with her community and this support was not taken into account at the hearing. -D) Ms Baldock refers to there being no evidence found and provided that shows that she stopped the painting of the house. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any evidence of their claim that Ms Baldock did stop the painting of the house.
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 Gael Joy Baldock has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The initial landlord application before the Tribunal was simply for access to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Several hearings were held over a nearly 12 month period between me, Ms Perese and Ms Baldock.
For completeness I make this assessment of this landlord application and the process through the Tribunal. Over the last 12 month period there has been every opportunity for this matter to be resolved to both parties’ satisfaction and for the tenancy of Ms Baldock to continue. Ms Baldock actions throughout this period have hindered this outcome.
The landlord and tenant do have an extensive history of troubled dealings with each other. However, Ms Perese for the landlord, gave an undertaking to be the person who would follow this process through and work with Ms Baldock to make sure the work was done and rebuild the relationship.
The landlord, over the years have tried to help and work with Ms Baldock. In particular the appointment of an independent mediator from Fairways Resolution Limited to assist her with the process of engaging and facilitating the completion of the house painting. Numerous meetings onsite and in the office and discussions with various people within Kainga Ora.
Despite all the years of trying to work together to achieve a well maintained and compliant property, the property remains unpainted, non-compliant with healthy homes and lacking routine maintenance.
I do not find that there was new evidence, the mediators report, and the history of disputes between the parties were well documented throughout the hearing and evidence provided by both parties during the process.
The issue of the new house offer, and the arrangement for moving are not a ground for a rehearing.
Finally, I accept that Ms Baldock was not focusing on the issue of termination at our last substantive hearing. However, I consider she turned a blind eye to something that was known about and active from May 2024 when the application was filed by the Landlord with the Tribunal.
For these reasons I am dismissing Ms Baldock’s rehearing application and my Order of 5 November 2024 stands.
I do not consider there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice that has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing application hearing.
On 5 November, the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy and dismissing the tenants claims for retaliatory notice, breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry.
On 12 November 2024, Gael Joy Baldock applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: - That since the hearing, the tenant has discovered further evidence about a mediator’s report, -That during the hearing on 5 November 2024 the landlord announced that they had a new house which was not known to her. -That the landlord sought 2-4 weeks to arrange alternative accommodation and assist with moving. -That there was new evidence relating to the history of the disputes between the parties about maintenance. -That the support and connection with her community was not taken into account. -That she was not focused on the “termination” claim by the landlord as she believed it was just a threat for her to comply with their access and inspection requests.
The landlord has responded to the grounds claimed for a rehearing. I am going to include their response in this order, as I accept, they were not given an adequate opportunity to response to Ms Baldock claims at the rehearing hearing.
The landlord’s response is: -The landlord acknowledges that there has been a history with this property and maintenance issues. The tenant had the opportunity to go to the Tenancy Tribunal at any time to obtain a work order for maintenance prior to the landlord’s application for access. -The tenant clearly has considerable community support, however that is not relevant to the application for a rehearing. -The landlord does not accept that any of the new evidence is relevant to their application for termination of the tenancy and possession of the property. -The landlord does not accept that their application was retaliatory and that any of her new evidence provides a reason to assume otherwise. -The landlord does not accept that the evidence provided warrants a rehearing. -All the landlord needed at the start of this process was for the tenant to allow access to complete the Healthy Homes assessment and work to comply with their obligations as a landlord. -The tenant would not allow the landlord access and the evidence provided and given at the previous hearings reflected this.
After Ms Baldock filed her rehearing application, I asked for further specific information before I make a final determination of the rehearing application. That information was : -A) Can Ms Baldock please provide me with any further evidence relating to the termination that she would have has available to her at the last hearing had she realised this was going to be the ultimate outcome of the hearing. -B) Could Ms Baldock please advise how would this information have affected the evidence heard during all the hearings relating to failing to provide access to the landlord for inspections, Healthy Homes Assessment, and maintenance. -C) The support letters provided by Ms Baldock for the rehearing application, how would this assist in determining whether there should be a rehearing of this application? -D) Ms Baldock refers to new evidence throughout the rehearing application, could she please set out what the new evidence is?
Ms Baldock’s response to these questions were: -A) There were many emails provided. -B) Ms Baldock has provided countless emails relating to issues in the past 10 years relating to painting issues, damage to sculptures, removal of hazarded waste and scaffolding. -C) These letters show her deep connection with her community and this support was not taken into account at the hearing. -D) Ms Baldock refers to there being no evidence found and provided that shows that she stopped the painting of the house. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any evidence of their claim that Ms Baldock did stop the painting of the house.
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 Gael Joy Baldock has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The initial landlord application before the Tribunal was simply for access to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Several hearings were held over a nearly 12 month period between me, Ms Perese and Ms Baldock.
For completeness I make this assessment of this landlord application and the process through the Tribunal. Over the last 12 month period there has been every opportunity for this matter to be resolved to both parties’ satisfaction and for the tenancy of Ms Baldock to continue. Ms Baldock actions throughout this period have hindered this outcome.
The landlord and tenant do have an extensive history of troubled dealings with each other. However, Ms Perese for the landlord, gave an undertaking to be the person who would follow this process through and work with Ms Baldock to make sure the work was done and rebuild the relationship.
The landlord, over the years have tried to help and work with Ms Baldock. In particular the appointment of an independent mediator from Fairways Resolution Limited to assist her with the process of engaging and facilitating the completion of the house painting. Numerous meetings onsite and in the office and discussions with various people within Kainga Ora.
Despite all the years of trying to work together to achieve a well maintained and compliant property, the property remains unpainted, non-compliant with healthy homes and lacking routine maintenance.
I do not find that there was new evidence, the mediators report, and the history of disputes between the parties were well documented throughout the hearing and evidence provided by both parties during the process.
The issue of the new house offer, and the arrangement for moving are not a ground for a rehearing.
Finally, I accept that Ms Baldock was not focusing on the issue of termination at our last substantive hearing. However, I consider she turned a blind eye to something that was known about and active from May 2024 when the application was filed by the Landlord with the Tribunal.
For these reasons I am dismissing Ms Baldock’s rehearing application and my Order of 5 November 2024 stands.
I do not consider there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice that has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711005 — Healthy homes at 34 Warwick Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711005 — Healthy homes at 34 Warwick Avenue, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions