What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909213?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4909213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909213?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909213?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4909213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909213?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926005-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Garden Heights Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909213 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tribunal is required to decide whether the tenant has established grounds for a rehearing of the decision dated 16 August 2024.The Tribunal ordered the landlord complete a work order, their application for termination and ordered that the tenant allow access and limit emails. The tenant says that the Tribunal: • Did not get to see 75% of the tenants evidence • Did not give advice on how to prepare and he felt that the hearing was stacked against him • Judged the tenant on his behaviour, not the facts • Did not consider the retaliatory notice claim • Did not give time to look at the landlord’s information. • order was published in news media • Ordered no consequences for the 14-day notice claims The law on rehearings

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 substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur? The Tribunal did not get to see 75% of the tenant’s evidence.

The tenant submitted a large amount of evidence and because of this was asked to direct the adjudicator to the evidence they wanted to use.

Not all evidence provided is relevant to the claims. The order did not mention all the evidence seen or produced, but it was considered in the writing of the order. The tenant felt the hearing was stacked against him because he did not know how to prepare.

The tenant said he had a lot more evidence and needed follow up text or emails reminding him or telling him what to expect and how to prepare for a hearing. He felt he was disadvantaged because he had other evidence that he could have produced and did not know what to do.

The notice of hearing that was issued to the parties has a guide attached with direct links to tenancy services website, community law where free advice is available and the Residential Tenancies Act. It has information about what to bring and what happens a hearing.

The information and help were available for the tenant to be informed and prepared for the hearing. The tenant said he had no time to look at the landlord’s information.

The parties were given the opportunity to look at and review the evidence provided at the hearing. The adjudicator asked both parties what evidence they had constantly during the hearing.

The tenant was provided with copies of the evidence and directed to the evidence that the landlord sought to rely on. The adjudicator judged the tenant on his behaviour not the facts.

The 16 August order declined the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and created work orders that the landlord had to comply with. The tenant’s evidence and claims were considered and determinations made.

Some of the tenants’ claims were dismissed but this was based on the evidence provided at the hearing.

The tenant said that he emailed the landlord whenever he thought of something and was ordered to restrict these.

Security was present at the later part of the hearing but was not required to intervene.

The decisions made were evidence based. The retaliatory notice claim was not considered.

The tenant said that the retaliatory tactics were not looked at. This is not grounds for a declaration that a notice is retaliatory and of no effect.

The landlord had not issued a notice terminating the tenancy, so there was no retaliatory notice to consider. See section 54 RTA.

The tenant believed a repairman was related to the owner and was spying on them. There was no evidence provided to support this. The order was published in news media and the tenant was suspicious that the landlord released this.

The tenants were concerned that the article was published quoting the decision and named them as parties and identified the address.

The tenant did not ask for name suppression in the application and did not ask the Tribunal for name suppression. There was no evidence that the order was released to the media by the landlord, and they denied any involvement.

Tribunal orders are published on a public website and able to be searched by journalists and members of the public. There were no consequences for the landlord of the 14-day notice claims that were rectified after the 14 days expired.

There was no dispute that the issues relating to the 14-day notices were rectified. A claim was made that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises and the Tribunal found that the tenant did not provide enough evidence to support some claims under this heading and they were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the landlord had made attempts to attended to the tenant’s other claim, but it took time to achieve a final fix of the issues.

The decision was made on the facts before the Tribunal. Determination

Having considered the tenants submissions I find that the tenant has not established any grounds for a rehearing. Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. Essentially, the tenant is unhappy with the outcome. That is a ground for an appeal, not for a rehearing.

The tenant has failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and the application for a rehearing is dismissed.