What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756029?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4756029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10333065-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756029?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4756029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10333065-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Stonehaven Drive, RD 8, Maungakaramea 0178 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756029 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 9 April 2024 I made an order that Sammons-Newton Trust Trustee Ltd was to pay Kaylene Rhodes and Bryce Harvey $1,770.44.
On 13 April 2024, Mr Newton filed an application for a re-hearing.
The application hearing took place by phone on 10 May 2024.
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
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.
Where both parties attended the original hearing, the Tribunal will only grant a re-hearing if the applicant can show a procedural unfairness in the way that the hearing was conducted, or that new evidence is available that was not available at the time of the original hearing, and that could have had a bearing on the outcome if it had been available at that time.
The brief written application identified three broad grounds for the application: a. At the hearing on 15 March 2023 the tenants brought a large volume of evidence that had not been previously disclosed, and “the Adjudicator told us we would have to think on our toes”. b. There were “factual inaccuracies” in the decision. c. “We did not get to put our case to be heard”.
Mr Newton expanded on these grounds at the application hearing. Evidence brought on the day of the hearing
The tenants’ application stated that they were seeking compensation for interference with their peace, comfort, and privacy, but it did not provide any detail of specific issues / incidents.
At the hearing Ms Rhodes and Mr Harvey brought a large amount of evidence, and details of their specific peace, comfort, and privacy claims.
I accept that Mr Newton did not know the details of the tenants’ claims until the day of the hearing.
In the Tenancy Tribunal most parties do not have legal representation. The Tenancy Tribunal has more flexible rules around evidence than the higher courts. There is no compulsory requirement for parties to disclose all of their evidence before the hearing.
If a party brings a large amount of evidence on the day of the hearing this introduces the risk of a procedural unfairness if the other party does not have a reasonable opportunity to respond to that evidence.
I have listened to the recording of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, I explained the risk of procedural unfairness due to Mr Newton not being aware of the details of the tenants’ claims before the hearing. I suggested to the parties that we work through the tenants’ submissions to get an understanding of their claims. I told Mr Newton that once we had worked through the submissions, I would check with him whether he was comfortable that he had adequate opportunity to respond, or whether he was disadvantaged by having to respond “on his toes”.
Near the end of the hearing I had the following conversation with Mr Newton (NB refers to myself and DN to Mr Newton): NB: I appreciate that you didn’t know until you came into the room what precisely you had to respond to. DN: Yes I’ve been on my toes the whole time. NB: I’m comfortable with what you’ve told me, because every time [the tenants] have said something you’ve been able to go this is from my recollection what happened... DN: Yes close enough NB: And there’s been no occasion where you’ve said “oh I’ve got a text message about that if only I could go find it”. Right? So, if you’re happy, I’m happy that you’ve responded appropriately to everything that we’ve addressed. DN: Yes. NB: Yes? You’re comfortable? DN: Yes. NB: OK
This aligns with my recollection of the hearing. Mr Newton gave clear and detailed responses to all of the specific issues that the tenants raised.
Mr Newton has not identified any evidence that he did not have the opportunity to present because he did not know the details of the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy claims before the hearing.
Mr Newton did not request an adjournment.
I am satisfied that Mr Newton was not materially disadvantaged by not having details of the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy claims before the hearing, and that therefore there was no procedural unfairness in the way that the hearing was conducted. Factual inaccuracies
Mr Newton’s oral arguments under this heading mostly amounted to re-stating arguments that he presented at the original hearing.
I accept that there are parts of the decision that Mr Newton disagrees with.
However, disagreeing with a decision is not grounds for a re-hearing to be granted. If it was, then the parties would be caught in a potentially endless cycle of hearings and re-hearings. Case not heard
Near the end of the original hearing, Mr Newton raised an objection that the Trust’s claim had not yet been heard.
I then had a conversation with Mr Newton attempting to clarify what he meant by that objection.
At the end of the conversation I was still not entirely clear what Mr Newton meant, but I was satisfied that: a. The tenants had presented their claims for interference with peace comfort and privacy, and Mr Newton had responded to all of those claims. b. Mr Newton had presented the Trust’s claim for rent arrears and the tenants had responded to that claim. c. All of the evidence that both parties wanted to present was before the Tribunal.
After hearing from Mr Newton about this issue again at the application hearing on 10 May, I remain of the same view.
It seems that Mr Newton’s concern is that he did not have the opportunity to refute every single point raised in the tenants’ written and oral submissions.
However, that is not the purpose of a Tribunal hearing. Tenancy Tribunal decisions do not address every disputed point. If they did, the decisions would often run to a hundred pages long. The Tribunal is only required to determine claims – what I refer to as “dollar sign issues” – where a landlord or tenant is seeking a remedy. A remedy is only available where there is a proven breach of a legal duty. Not every issue raised in a hearing is in that category, and if it is not in that category then it is not necessary for the other party to refute or defend it, because it will not be addressed in the decision. Outcome
It is not proven that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The application for a re-hearing is dismissed. The order dated 9 April 2024 stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 9 April 2024 I made an order that Sammons-Newton Trust Trustee Ltd was to pay Kaylene Rhodes and Bryce Harvey $1,770.44.
On 13 April 2024, Mr Newton filed an application for a re-hearing.
The application hearing took place by phone on 10 May 2024.
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
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.
Where both parties attended the original hearing, the Tribunal will only grant a re-hearing if the applicant can show a procedural unfairness in the way that the hearing was conducted, or that new evidence is available that was not available at the time of the original hearing, and that could have had a bearing on the outcome if it had been available at that time.
The brief written application identified three broad grounds for the application: a. At the hearing on 15 March 2023 the tenants brought a large volume of evidence that had not been previously disclosed, and “the Adjudicator told us we would have to think on our toes”. b. There were “factual inaccuracies” in the decision. c. “We did not get to put our case to be heard”.
Mr Newton expanded on these grounds at the application hearing. Evidence brought on the day of the hearing
The tenants’ application stated that they were seeking compensation for interference with their peace, comfort, and privacy, but it did not provide any detail of specific issues / incidents.
At the hearing Ms Rhodes and Mr Harvey brought a large amount of evidence, and details of their specific peace, comfort, and privacy claims.
I accept that Mr Newton did not know the details of the tenants’ claims until the day of the hearing.
In the Tenancy Tribunal most parties do not have legal representation. The Tenancy Tribunal has more flexible rules around evidence than the higher courts. There is no compulsory requirement for parties to disclose all of their evidence before the hearing.
If a party brings a large amount of evidence on the day of the hearing this introduces the risk of a procedural unfairness if the other party does not have a reasonable opportunity to respond to that evidence.
I have listened to the recording of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, I explained the risk of procedural unfairness due to Mr Newton not being aware of the details of the tenants’ claims before the hearing. I suggested to the parties that we work through the tenants’ submissions to get an understanding of their claims. I told Mr Newton that once we had worked through the submissions, I would check with him whether he was comfortable that he had adequate opportunity to respond, or whether he was disadvantaged by having to respond “on his toes”.
Near the end of the hearing I had the following conversation with Mr Newton (NB refers to myself and DN to Mr Newton): NB: I appreciate that you didn’t know until you came into the room what precisely you had to respond to. DN: Yes I’ve been on my toes the whole time. NB: I’m comfortable with what you’ve told me, because every time [the tenants] have said something you’ve been able to go this is from my recollection what happened... DN: Yes close enough NB: And there’s been no occasion where you’ve said “oh I’ve got a text message about that if only I could go find it”. Right? So, if you’re happy, I’m happy that you’ve responded appropriately to everything that we’ve addressed. DN: Yes. NB: Yes? You’re comfortable? DN: Yes. NB: OK
This aligns with my recollection of the hearing. Mr Newton gave clear and detailed responses to all of the specific issues that the tenants raised.
Mr Newton has not identified any evidence that he did not have the opportunity to present because he did not know the details of the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy claims before the hearing.
Mr Newton did not request an adjournment.
I am satisfied that Mr Newton was not materially disadvantaged by not having details of the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy claims before the hearing, and that therefore there was no procedural unfairness in the way that the hearing was conducted. Factual inaccuracies
Mr Newton’s oral arguments under this heading mostly amounted to re-stating arguments that he presented at the original hearing.
I accept that there are parts of the decision that Mr Newton disagrees with.
However, disagreeing with a decision is not grounds for a re-hearing to be granted. If it was, then the parties would be caught in a potentially endless cycle of hearings and re-hearings. Case not heard
Near the end of the original hearing, Mr Newton raised an objection that the Trust’s claim had not yet been heard.
I then had a conversation with Mr Newton attempting to clarify what he meant by that objection.
At the end of the conversation I was still not entirely clear what Mr Newton meant, but I was satisfied that: a. The tenants had presented their claims for interference with peace comfort and privacy, and Mr Newton had responded to all of those claims. b. Mr Newton had presented the Trust’s claim for rent arrears and the tenants had responded to that claim. c. All of the evidence that both parties wanted to present was before the Tribunal.
After hearing from Mr Newton about this issue again at the application hearing on 10 May, I remain of the same view.
It seems that Mr Newton’s concern is that he did not have the opportunity to refute every single point raised in the tenants’ written and oral submissions.
However, that is not the purpose of a Tribunal hearing. Tenancy Tribunal decisions do not address every disputed point. If they did, the decisions would often run to a hundred pages long. The Tribunal is only required to determine claims – what I refer to as “dollar sign issues” – where a landlord or tenant is seeking a remedy. A remedy is only available where there is a proven breach of a legal duty. Not every issue raised in a hearing is in that category, and if it is not in that category then it is not necessary for the other party to refute or defend it, because it will not be addressed in the decision. Outcome
It is not proven that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The application for a re-hearing is dismissed. The order dated 9 April 2024 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756029 — Rent arrears at 10 Stonehaven Drive, RD 8, Maungakaramea 0178

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756029 — Rent arrears at 10 Stonehaven Drive, RD 8, Maungakaramea 0178

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions