How much money was awarded in case 4732309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732309?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10335947-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4732309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732309?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10335947-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4732309 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4732309?

The tribunal order states: (This order corrects the Tenancy Address from 138 Epuni Street to 138A Epuni

Order

(This order corrects the Tenancy Address from 138 Epuni Street to 138A Epuni Street. The order remains the same as the 10 May order in all other respects) The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider Melanie’s rehearing application.
On 7 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing Melanie’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 8 March Melanie applied for an ‘Out of Time’ rehearing on the grounds that she had new information to support her claim. I accept Melanie’s reason for her rehearing application being out of time. I ordered a hearing to be scheduled to consider her application and provide an opportunity to hear from the parties about Melanie’s rehearing application. The hearing took place on 1 May.
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, provided that it could have affected the outcome.
Melanie included her ‘new evidence’ with her rehearing application. It is Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities record (hereafter “the Record”) of complaints made by Melanie while staying at 138A Epuni Street.
I have read all the entries in the Record. I have listened in full to the audio copy of the hearing that took place on 7 February 2024. Is the Record ‘new evidence’ that was not reasonably available on 7 February?
The Record was always available to Melanie at some time. She had asked Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities for a copy of the record before the hearing on 7 February. Normally a party will make an application when the evidence they need is in their hands. Melanie made an application and did not have this information for the hearing. Melanie could have produced this evidence at a hearing if she had waited to make her application when she had received the Record. That decision was up to her. The matters raised in the landlord’s application could have been heard on 7 February and Melanie’s application could have been heard after the landlord’s application had concluded.
Technically this information presented in Melanie’s rehearing application is not evidence that was unavailable on 7 February.

Did Melanie request an adjournment on 7 February to provide further evidence?

Melanie mentioned in the hearing on 7 February that she had applied to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities for the Record and it had not been provided. On 13 December 2023 a hearing took place to consider Melanie’s application for compensation and exemplary damages regarding neighbours at the property she moved to after 138A Epuni Street. I adjourned that hearing to obtain a Record for 1 Saxby Grove. The Record for that case had not arrived when the hearing regarding 138A Epuni Street took place. Although Melanie was aware that I had adjourned to obtain a Record for Saxby, she did not request an adjournment for the Record for Epuni Street. On 7 February I decided that I did not need to hear further from the parties and reserved my decision.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

As stated above, to give full attention to Melanie’s application, I read through the Record she provided with her rehearing application and listened to the audio recording of the 7 February hearing. I also read through my decision made after the 7 February hearing. My objective was to assess whether my decision would have been different if the Record had been available to me before making a final decision.
I have not granted a rehearing because the information in the Record does not affect my 7 February decision to dismiss Melanie’s application. Although the Record does provide more detailed information about Melanie’s complaints about her neighbour, it does not change the fact that Melanie’s complaints were clouded by complaints the landlord received about her. These complaints were both from the neighbour she was complaining about and other private homeowners in the street. The challenging behaviour Melanie exhibited with Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities staff is more extensive when taking entries in the Record into account. Melanie does not seem to understand that her lack of control when dealing with the landlord only makes it harder for the landlord to believe that she is not contributing to the problem in the neighbourhood.
Although the Record shows that Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities had reason to believe Melanie was significantly contributing to the neighbourhood problems, Melanie was offered the opportunity to relocate. This offer was much earlier than I understood from the evidence at the 7 February hearing. Melanie moved in August 2022 to Saxby Grove but declined the landlord’s offer to relocate, made on 8 February 2022. That offer on 7 February was after she advised the landlord of the totally unacceptable text from the next door neighbour.
Melanie’s claim for compensation was based on Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities failing to assist her with her complaints about her neighbour. Even when the landlord did offer a way out, Melanie declined to move. Summary
Having considered all the evidence available to me I do not find that there are sufficient grounds for a rehearing of the case and so the application for a rehearing is declined.

Order

(This order corrects the Tenancy Address from 138 Epuni Street to 138A Epuni Street. The order remains the same as the 10 May order in all other respects) The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider Melanie’s rehearing application.
On 7 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing Melanie’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 8 March Melanie applied for an ‘Out of Time’ rehearing on the grounds that she had new information to support her claim. I accept Melanie’s reason for her rehearing application being out of time. I ordered a hearing to be scheduled to consider her application and provide an opportunity to hear from the parties about Melanie’s rehearing application. The hearing took place on 1 May.
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, provided that it could have affected the outcome.
Melanie included her ‘new evidence’ with her rehearing application. It is Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities record (hereafter “the Record”) of complaints made by Melanie while staying at 138A Epuni Street.
I have read all the entries in the Record. I have listened in full to the audio copy of the hearing that took place on 7 February 2024. Is the Record ‘new evidence’ that was not reasonably available on 7 February?
The Record was always available to Melanie at some time. She had asked Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities for a copy of the record before the hearing on 7 February. Normally a party will make an application when the evidence they need is in their hands. Melanie made an application and did not have this information for the hearing. Melanie could have produced this evidence at a hearing if she had waited to make her application when she had received the Record. That decision was up to her. The matters raised in the landlord’s application could have been heard on 7 February and Melanie’s application could have been heard after the landlord’s application had concluded.
Technically this information presented in Melanie’s rehearing application is not evidence that was unavailable on 7 February.

Did Melanie request an adjournment on 7 February to provide further evidence?

Melanie mentioned in the hearing on 7 February that she had applied to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities for the Record and it had not been provided. On 13 December 2023 a hearing took place to consider Melanie’s application for compensation and exemplary damages regarding neighbours at the property she moved to after 138A Epuni Street. I adjourned that hearing to obtain a Record for 1 Saxby Grove. The Record for that case had not arrived when the hearing regarding 138A Epuni Street took place. Although Melanie was aware that I had adjourned to obtain a Record for Saxby, she did not request an adjournment for the Record for Epuni Street. On 7 February I decided that I did not need to hear further from the parties and reserved my decision.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

As stated above, to give full attention to Melanie’s application, I read through the Record she provided with her rehearing application and listened to the audio recording of the 7 February hearing. I also read through my decision made after the 7 February hearing. My objective was to assess whether my decision would have been different if the Record had been available to me before making a final decision.
I have not granted a rehearing because the information in the Record does not affect my 7 February decision to dismiss Melanie’s application. Although the Record does provide more detailed information about Melanie’s complaints about her neighbour, it does not change the fact that Melanie’s complaints were clouded by complaints the landlord received about her. These complaints were both from the neighbour she was complaining about and other private homeowners in the street. The challenging behaviour Melanie exhibited with Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities staff is more extensive when taking entries in the Record into account. Melanie does not seem to understand that her lack of control when dealing with the landlord only makes it harder for the landlord to believe that she is not contributing to the problem in the neighbourhood.
Although the Record shows that Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities had reason to believe Melanie was significantly contributing to the neighbourhood problems, Melanie was offered the opportunity to relocate. This offer was much earlier than I understood from the evidence at the 7 February hearing. Melanie moved in August 2022 to Saxby Grove but declined the landlord’s offer to relocate, made on 8 February 2022. That offer on 7 February was after she advised the landlord of the totally unacceptable text from the next door neighbour.
Melanie’s claim for compensation was based on Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities failing to assist her with her complaints about her neighbour. Even when the landlord did offer a way out, Melanie declined to move. Summary
Having considered all the evidence available to me I do not find that there are sufficient grounds for a rehearing of the case and so the application for a rehearing is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732309 — Exemplary damages at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732309 — Exemplary damages at 138A Epuni Street, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did Melanie request an adjournment on 7 February to provide further evidence?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did Melanie request an adjournment on 7 February to provide further evidence?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions