What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907317?

The tribunal order states: The debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30

How much money was awarded in case 4907317?

The reconciled net award was $3,192.86.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907317?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971509-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907317?

The tribunal order states: The debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30

How much money was awarded in case 4907317?

The reconciled net award was $3,192.86.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907317?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971509-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 50 Gribblehirst Road, Sandringham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907317 — Rent arrears

Order

The debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30 August 2024 is amended from $1,213.30 to $3,213.30. Accordingly, Fiona Marie Wikaira must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent for Abdul, Rafikaan Rehana Shekhumia $3,213.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
In all other respects, the order dated 30 August 2024 remains unchanged and enforceable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the substantive hearing on 30 August 2024 where I issued an order granting the landlord’s application for termination, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
On 6 September 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing. The basis of the request was that the bond of $2,000.00 had already been refunded on 27 March 2024 and therefore, the total debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30 August 2024 was incorrect.
The matter was set down for consideration on whether to grant a rehearing today, 18 October 2024. The landlord appeared. The tenant did not.
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?

I consider that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The landlord advised that the reason they were not aware the bond had already been refunded was because the tenant had previously applied for and been granted a rehearing twice. The landlord did not think that the bond would be refunded in these circumstances. Further, the tenant had a tendency of paying their rent in lump sums. Therefore, when the bond was refunded as a lump sum payment of $2,000.00, the landlord had no reason to think that this was a refund of the bond.
It was only after the hearing on 30 August 2024 that the landlord received communication from the Bond Centre that the bond had already been refunded. The landlord was not aware of this fact before.
I find the landlord’s explanation as to why they missed the fact that the bond had already been refunded understandable in the circumstances. The letter from the Bond Centre was only received after the hearing. It constitutes new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing and would have affected the outcome.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is granted and I find it appropriate to hold the rehearing immediately. The issue is not complex and supported by incontrovertible evidence from the Bond Centre that the bond was refunded on 27 March 2024.
The order dated 30 August 2024 is amended to reflect the fact that the tenant owes the landlord $3,213.30 in rent arrears and the filing fee. In all other respects, the original order remains the same and enforceable.

Order

The debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30 August 2024 is amended from $1,213.30 to $3,213.30. Accordingly, Fiona Marie Wikaira must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent for Abdul, Rafikaan Rehana Shekhumia $3,213.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
In all other respects, the order dated 30 August 2024 remains unchanged and enforceable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the substantive hearing on 30 August 2024 where I issued an order granting the landlord’s application for termination, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
On 6 September 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing. The basis of the request was that the bond of $2,000.00 had already been refunded on 27 March 2024 and therefore, the total debt owed by the tenant to the landlord recorded in the order dated 30 August 2024 was incorrect.
The matter was set down for consideration on whether to grant a rehearing today, 18 October 2024. The landlord appeared. The tenant did not.
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?

I consider that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The landlord advised that the reason they were not aware the bond had already been refunded was because the tenant had previously applied for and been granted a rehearing twice. The landlord did not think that the bond would be refunded in these circumstances. Further, the tenant had a tendency of paying their rent in lump sums. Therefore, when the bond was refunded as a lump sum payment of $2,000.00, the landlord had no reason to think that this was a refund of the bond.
It was only after the hearing on 30 August 2024 that the landlord received communication from the Bond Centre that the bond had already been refunded. The landlord was not aware of this fact before.
I find the landlord’s explanation as to why they missed the fact that the bond had already been refunded understandable in the circumstances. The letter from the Bond Centre was only received after the hearing. It constitutes new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing and would have affected the outcome.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is granted and I find it appropriate to hold the rehearing immediately. The issue is not complex and supported by incontrovertible evidence from the Bond Centre that the bond was refunded on 27 March 2024.
The order dated 30 August 2024 is amended to reflect the fact that the tenant owes the landlord $3,213.30 in rent arrears and the filing fee. In all other respects, the original order remains the same and enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907317 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 50 Gribblehirst Road, Sandringham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907317 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 50 Gribblehirst Road, Sandringham,

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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