What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815437?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4815437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815437?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4815437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815437 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This application was scheduled for hearing today at 9.30am. The Tribunal allowed a full morning for the hearing of the application. The tenant did not attend nor did his representative. Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt represented the landlord.
The tenant seeks work orders and compensation for alleged breaches of his quiet enjoyment by another tenant.
There have been 2 previous adjournments, unopposed, for the parties to attend mediation. However, no agreements were reached.
The tenant was given approval to have a representative. He appointed Mr Warren Smith.
Since his appointment, Mr Smith has sought orders for discovery (which the Tribunal has no power to make); orders for the joinder of another party (which the Tribunal declined) and an application to issue a witness summons for the Chief Executive of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) to attend and give evidence (which the Tribunal said it would address at the hearing today).
The Tribunal has had to issue directions in response to these applications allegedly made by the tenant but obviously made by Mr Smith and has had to ask Mr Smith to desist from arguing with the directions made.
At 5.46pm on Thursday 14 November 2024 (after business hours and before the long Canterbury Anniversary weekend), Mr Smith emailed the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for today. He said: I am writing to inform you that unfortunately, Mr. Spriggs is currently unwell due to the effects of a serious car accident. I have attached a medical certificate from his doctor requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for Monday, 18 November 2024. Mr. Spriggs had attempted to secure an earlier appointment, but due to staffing shortages and high demand, timely appointments have been difficult to obtain.
The attached medical certificate states:
I became aware of Mr Smith’s email requesting an adjournment about 20 minutes before the hearing was due to start.
I invited submissions from the OCHT representatives regarding the adjournment request.
Ms Wyatt produced an email from Ms Anderson, a Senior Tenancy Advisor dated 13 November 2024. It states: Hi all, just an update. I did Austen’s annual inspection today and he was in good spirits, feeling he was getting back on top of things after his car accident. He said since Bernie has left there is no sign of rats or mice anymore and he is no longer concerned about them. He has had the best sleep for ages and is feeling much better. He has removed the rubbish from his back door. When I saw him and Warren a couple of weeks ago, I asked if he would like support from Sustaining Tenancies and Austen said yes, but Warren told him he knew someone who would suit him better. Today Austen asked for a referral to Sustaining Tenancies again. I will open a case with TST and ask Donna or Claire to follow up with him about support.
The OCHT representatives said they believed that Mr Smith was driving this claim, not the tenant. I have formed that view as well given the tenor of the many communications from Mr Smith to the Tribunal and the applications for orders for joinder and discovery.
Parties in the Tenancy Tribunal are not automatically entitled to representation; if approved it is to assist them navigate the process when they are under some kind of restriction or impairment and feel unable to present their case themselves. Sadly, I would have to say that Mr Smith’s involvement to date has hindered rather than helped the tenant.
An application for an adjournment made after business hours on the day before a long weekend for a hearing scheduled at the start of the next business day is objectively unreasonable. Here the evidence in support of the adjournment request is in direct conflict with the observations of the tenant’s Senior Tenancy Advisor.
The Tribunal must consider both parties’ positions. OCHT opposed the adjournment request, noting the previous adjournments for a mediated settlement, which have been unsuccessful.
This case illustrates what the Tribunal is seeing more of – requests for representation where the representative takes over and ‘makes the case their own’. Here, Mr Smith wants the Tribunal to make all kinds of directions to advance arguments that involve policy decisions and resource allocation, none of which are matters the Tribunal can or would be concerned with.
I cannot reconcile the medical certificate produced in support of the application for an adjournment with the comments of the tenant’s interaction with Ms Anderson as recorded in her email.
Without an appearance by the tenant or his representative, I have dismissed the application. There were no reasonable grounds for the late adjournment considering all the evidence placed before the Tribunal.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This application was scheduled for hearing today at 9.30am. The Tribunal allowed a full morning for the hearing of the application. The tenant did not attend nor did his representative. Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt represented the landlord.
The tenant seeks work orders and compensation for alleged breaches of his quiet enjoyment by another tenant.
There have been 2 previous adjournments, unopposed, for the parties to attend mediation. However, no agreements were reached.
The tenant was given approval to have a representative. He appointed Mr Warren Smith.
Since his appointment, Mr Smith has sought orders for discovery (which the Tribunal has no power to make); orders for the joinder of another party (which the Tribunal declined) and an application to issue a witness summons for the Chief Executive of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) to attend and give evidence (which the Tribunal said it would address at the hearing today).
The Tribunal has had to issue directions in response to these applications allegedly made by the tenant but obviously made by Mr Smith and has had to ask Mr Smith to desist from arguing with the directions made.
At 5.46pm on Thursday 14 November 2024 (after business hours and before the long Canterbury Anniversary weekend), Mr Smith emailed the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for today. He said: I am writing to inform you that unfortunately, Mr. Spriggs is currently unwell due to the effects of a serious car accident. I have attached a medical certificate from his doctor requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for Monday, 18 November 2024. Mr. Spriggs had attempted to secure an earlier appointment, but due to staffing shortages and high demand, timely appointments have been difficult to obtain.
The attached medical certificate states:
I became aware of Mr Smith’s email requesting an adjournment about 20 minutes before the hearing was due to start.
I invited submissions from the OCHT representatives regarding the adjournment request.
Ms Wyatt produced an email from Ms Anderson, a Senior Tenancy Advisor dated 13 November 2024. It states: Hi all, just an update. I did Austen’s annual inspection today and he was in good spirits, feeling he was getting back on top of things after his car accident. He said since Bernie has left there is no sign of rats or mice anymore and he is no longer concerned about them. He has had the best sleep for ages and is feeling much better. He has removed the rubbish from his back door. When I saw him and Warren a couple of weeks ago, I asked if he would like support from Sustaining Tenancies and Austen said yes, but Warren told him he knew someone who would suit him better. Today Austen asked for a referral to Sustaining Tenancies again. I will open a case with TST and ask Donna or Claire to follow up with him about support.
The OCHT representatives said they believed that Mr Smith was driving this claim, not the tenant. I have formed that view as well given the tenor of the many communications from Mr Smith to the Tribunal and the applications for orders for joinder and discovery.
Parties in the Tenancy Tribunal are not automatically entitled to representation; if approved it is to assist them navigate the process when they are under some kind of restriction or impairment and feel unable to present their case themselves. Sadly, I would have to say that Mr Smith’s involvement to date has hindered rather than helped the tenant.
An application for an adjournment made after business hours on the day before a long weekend for a hearing scheduled at the start of the next business day is objectively unreasonable. Here the evidence in support of the adjournment request is in direct conflict with the observations of the tenant’s Senior Tenancy Advisor.
The Tribunal must consider both parties’ positions. OCHT opposed the adjournment request, noting the previous adjournments for a mediated settlement, which have been unsuccessful.
This case illustrates what the Tribunal is seeing more of – requests for representation where the representative takes over and ‘makes the case their own’. Here, Mr Smith wants the Tribunal to make all kinds of directions to advance arguments that involve policy decisions and resource allocation, none of which are matters the Tribunal can or would be concerned with.
I cannot reconcile the medical certificate produced in support of the application for an adjournment with the comments of the tenant’s interaction with Ms Anderson as recorded in her email.
Without an appearance by the tenant or his representative, I have dismissed the application. There were no reasonable grounds for the late adjournment considering all the evidence placed before the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815437 — Tenancy dispute at 8 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815437 — Tenancy dispute at 8 MacGibbon Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions