What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5230871?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5230871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12155180-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5230871?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5230871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12155180-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 24, 7 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230871 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing-Consideration hearing held today.
On 13 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order as follows:
Ms Scott had not attended that hearing.
On 20 May 2025 Ms Scott requested a rehearing on the grounds that she had been unable to attend the hearing due to being in hospital on the 13 May 2025. She also stated that she needed the dog as an emotional help due to her suffering from “PTSD” (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). She stated that two years ago the door to her unit had been kicked in and not repaired by the landlord for two months. During this time Ms Scott said her house was burgled.
Information in support of these claims was not included in her application for a rehearing.
In my minute setting down a rehearing-consideration hearing, I directed that information in support of her claims needed to be forwarded to the Tribunal prior to the rehearing-consideration hearing. Specifically I referred to confirmation that she was in hospital on 13 May 2025 and couldn’t attend the hearing, and information regarding her door being kicked in and not repaired for two months.
This information was not provided prior to today’s hearing.
In today’s hearing I asked Ms Scott to read out the information she had that would confirm she was in hospital on 13 May 2025. Ms Scott said she was unable to lay her hands on that information at the moment, but she would send it through to the Tribunal by email immediately.
Ms Scott read out part of a Police Report about her door being kicked in in April 2023. Ms Gray confirmed a report had been received, and on 9 May 2023 a tradesperson had attended and boarded up the door, and then returned on 10 May 2023 and replaced the door and doorframe. Ms Scott stated that she didn’t return home for three months, by which time someone had removed her belongings. Ms Scott said that she got her dog around August or October 2023.
In today’s hearing Ms Scott said that she accepts her premises are not suitable for a dog as they are on the second floor. She said that the complaints come from a spiteful neighbour who claims the dog barks at them and bites them. Whereas Ms Scott accepts the dog barks at people it doesn’t know, she denies that it ever bites anyone.
I advised the parties I was prepared to consider any information received up until 10.30 am on the day of the hearing.
Ms Scott subsequently forwarded a police report she made about a burglary to her premises that occurred between 23 April 2023 and 27 April 2023.
No information regarding Ms Scott being in hospital on 13 May 2025 has been received.
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 a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Karen Scott has failed to satisfy me that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may occur: a. No information has been provided that shows Ms Scott was in hospital on 13 May 2025, or otherwise unable to attend the hearing on that day. b. No new information that was otherwise unavailable on the day of the hearing has been produced. c. Having heard Ms Scott’s submissions fully, I consider that I would have arrived at the same decision if she had attended the first hearing. This is because the premises are not suitable for the dog that she is keeping (which she accepts), and she is in breach of her Tenancy Agreement by not having sought permission from the landlord prior to obtaining the dog.
As a courtesy to Ms Scott, I am ending this Order by advising her that if she does not comply with the Order of 13 May 2025, she may be putting the continuation of her current tenancy in jeopardy.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the Rehearing-Consideration hearing held today.
On 13 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order as follows:
Ms Scott had not attended that hearing.
On 20 May 2025 Ms Scott requested a rehearing on the grounds that she had been unable to attend the hearing due to being in hospital on the 13 May 2025. She also stated that she needed the dog as an emotional help due to her suffering from “PTSD” (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). She stated that two years ago the door to her unit had been kicked in and not repaired by the landlord for two months. During this time Ms Scott said her house was burgled.
Information in support of these claims was not included in her application for a rehearing.
In my minute setting down a rehearing-consideration hearing, I directed that information in support of her claims needed to be forwarded to the Tribunal prior to the rehearing-consideration hearing. Specifically I referred to confirmation that she was in hospital on 13 May 2025 and couldn’t attend the hearing, and information regarding her door being kicked in and not repaired for two months.
This information was not provided prior to today’s hearing.
In today’s hearing I asked Ms Scott to read out the information she had that would confirm she was in hospital on 13 May 2025. Ms Scott said she was unable to lay her hands on that information at the moment, but she would send it through to the Tribunal by email immediately.
Ms Scott read out part of a Police Report about her door being kicked in in April 2023. Ms Gray confirmed a report had been received, and on 9 May 2023 a tradesperson had attended and boarded up the door, and then returned on 10 May 2023 and replaced the door and doorframe. Ms Scott stated that she didn’t return home for three months, by which time someone had removed her belongings. Ms Scott said that she got her dog around August or October 2023.
In today’s hearing Ms Scott said that she accepts her premises are not suitable for a dog as they are on the second floor. She said that the complaints come from a spiteful neighbour who claims the dog barks at them and bites them. Whereas Ms Scott accepts the dog barks at people it doesn’t know, she denies that it ever bites anyone.
I advised the parties I was prepared to consider any information received up until 10.30 am on the day of the hearing.
Ms Scott subsequently forwarded a police report she made about a burglary to her premises that occurred between 23 April 2023 and 27 April 2023.
No information regarding Ms Scott being in hospital on 13 May 2025 has been received.
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 a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Karen Scott has failed to satisfy me that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may occur: a. No information has been provided that shows Ms Scott was in hospital on 13 May 2025, or otherwise unable to attend the hearing on that day. b. No new information that was otherwise unavailable on the day of the hearing has been produced. c. Having heard Ms Scott’s submissions fully, I consider that I would have arrived at the same decision if she had attended the first hearing. This is because the premises are not suitable for the dog that she is keeping (which she accepts), and she is in breach of her Tenancy Agreement by not having sought permission from the landlord prior to obtaining the dog.
As a courtesy to Ms Scott, I am ending this Order by advising her that if she does not comply with the Order of 13 May 2025, she may be putting the continuation of her current tenancy in jeopardy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230871 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 24, 7 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230871 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 24, 7 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions