What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855460 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names of the tenants and the names of the

How much money was awarded in case 4855460?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855460?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855460 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names of the tenants and the names of the

How much money was awarded in case 4855460?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855460?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

85B Avalon Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855460 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the names of the tenants and the names of the tenants’ support person and witness.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application. The landlord attended with his support person, Mr Singh and the tenants attended with their support person [The tenant/s support person]. The hearing was held via teleconference.
On 6 August 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord was to pay the tenants $4,164.45. The order was made after the Tribunal had considered the landlord’s application for rent arrears and compensation and the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 8 August 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) only application 4855460 was heard, and that application 5187211 was not heard but a decision was made without the landlord’s knowledge; b) application 4855460 had been previously heard by a different adjudicator who found the damage was caused by the tenants deliberately; c) people present at the hearing on 2 July seemed to agree that the tenants caused the damage claimed by the landlord in his application; d) the landlord only went to the tenancy premises with the permission of the female tenant; e) the tenants have assaulted the landlord on more than one occasion including during the tenancy; f)justice has not been done; the adjudicator was biased.
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. 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 1 .

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I have considered all of the grounds raised by the landlord in determining whether a rehearing should be granted. For the following reasons has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) Only application 4855460 was heard, and that application 5187211 was not heard but a decision was made without the landlord’s knowledge;
The landlord believed that the tenants’ claim, being application 5187211, was determined without it being heard.
The tenants’ claim was heard. The hearing of both claims was heard during hearings held on three different days. Mr Sagoo attended all hearings and was 1 Adjudicator Woodhouse in his order to the parties dated 11 August 2025, setting the landlord’s rehearing application down for a hearing, extensively set out the District Court precedents for these principles. given opportunity to provide his response to all matters contained in the tenants’ claim.
Mr Sagoo attended all three hearings in front of me without a support person or a representative. Mr Sagoo raised his age and his health at all of these hearings. For that reason I explained at the hearings and in my orders adjourning the first two hearings that he was able to have someone with him at the hearings to assist him and/or represent him. It was not until the hearing to determine the rehearing application that he had a support person attend with him. b) Application 4855460 had been previously heard by a different adjudicator who found the damage was caused by the tenants deliberately;
Adjudicator Barnett heard and determined the landlord’s claim initially. The tenants made an application for rehearing on the basis that they had not received notice of the claim or the hearing, which was granted by Adjudicator Barnett on 15 January 2205. In his order he directed that the matter was to be set down to be heard afresh by a different adjudicator.
The landlord raised several times during the hearings in front of me that Adjudicator Barnett had already determined his claim. I explained each this issue was raised that Adjudicator Barnett’s order had been set aside when he had granted the rehearing, and that the matter was being heard afresh. Simply put, Adjudicator Barnett’s findings and order has no relevance as I have heard the claims afresh with both parties in attendance. c) People present at the hearing on 2 July seemed to agree that the tenants caused the damage claimed by the landlord in his application
Present at the hearing on 2 July was the landlord, the tenants and their support person [The tenant/s support person]. The tenants’ witness [the tenant’s witness] gave evidence on that day. My decision was made based on the submissions and evidence presented. My notes, taken during the hearing, do not support this allegation raised by the landlord.
My order records the tenants’ liability under the landlord’s claim for lawns and missing curtains. Apart from those items I did not find the tenants had caused the damage claimed by Mr Sagoo. Regardless, as I have set out above, and as Adjudicator Woodhouse has recorded in his order, rehearings “are about challenges to processes and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made” 2 . 2 Loh v Puri [2019] [2019] NZGC 1993 d)The landlord only went to the tenancy premises with the permission of the female tenant; and e)The tenants have assaulted the landlord on more than one occasion including during the tenancy;
The issue of the landlord going to the premises and the alleged assault on the landlord when at the premises was discussed at hearings of the claims. The landlord’s view on these matters is not a ground that a rehearing is able to be granted on.
Any alleged assaults that took place after the tenancy ended are not matters that the Tribunal would consider either in making a decision or in considering a rehearing. That is, only matters that occur during the tenancy are matters that the Tribunal considers. f)Justice has not been done; the adjudicator was biased.
My order was made after considering all of the submissions and evidence presented by both parties during the entire hearing of all claims. The parties had plenty of opportunity over the three hearings to present their views and evidence. I have no reason to be biased; I have no personal knowledge of either party outside of the Tribunal.
Accordingly for the reasons set out above the order of 6 August 2025 remains in force and the landlord’s application for rehearing is declined.

Order

The Tribunal suppresses the names of the tenants and the names of the tenants’ support person and witness.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application. The landlord attended with his support person, Mr Singh and the tenants attended with their support person [The tenant/s support person]. The hearing was held via teleconference.
On 6 August 2025 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord was to pay the tenants $4,164.45. The order was made after the Tribunal had considered the landlord’s application for rent arrears and compensation and the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 8 August 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) only application 4855460 was heard, and that application 5187211 was not heard but a decision was made without the landlord’s knowledge; b) application 4855460 had been previously heard by a different adjudicator who found the damage was caused by the tenants deliberately; c) people present at the hearing on 2 July seemed to agree that the tenants caused the damage claimed by the landlord in his application; d) the landlord only went to the tenancy premises with the permission of the female tenant; e) the tenants have assaulted the landlord on more than one occasion including during the tenancy; f)justice has not been done; the adjudicator was biased.
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. 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 1 .

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I have considered all of the grounds raised by the landlord in determining whether a rehearing should be granted. For the following reasons has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) Only application 4855460 was heard, and that application 5187211 was not heard but a decision was made without the landlord’s knowledge;
The landlord believed that the tenants’ claim, being application 5187211, was determined without it being heard.
The tenants’ claim was heard. The hearing of both claims was heard during hearings held on three different days. Mr Sagoo attended all hearings and was 1 Adjudicator Woodhouse in his order to the parties dated 11 August 2025, setting the landlord’s rehearing application down for a hearing, extensively set out the District Court precedents for these principles. given opportunity to provide his response to all matters contained in the tenants’ claim.
Mr Sagoo attended all three hearings in front of me without a support person or a representative. Mr Sagoo raised his age and his health at all of these hearings. For that reason I explained at the hearings and in my orders adjourning the first two hearings that he was able to have someone with him at the hearings to assist him and/or represent him. It was not until the hearing to determine the rehearing application that he had a support person attend with him. b) Application 4855460 had been previously heard by a different adjudicator who found the damage was caused by the tenants deliberately;
Adjudicator Barnett heard and determined the landlord’s claim initially. The tenants made an application for rehearing on the basis that they had not received notice of the claim or the hearing, which was granted by Adjudicator Barnett on 15 January 2205. In his order he directed that the matter was to be set down to be heard afresh by a different adjudicator.
The landlord raised several times during the hearings in front of me that Adjudicator Barnett had already determined his claim. I explained each this issue was raised that Adjudicator Barnett’s order had been set aside when he had granted the rehearing, and that the matter was being heard afresh. Simply put, Adjudicator Barnett’s findings and order has no relevance as I have heard the claims afresh with both parties in attendance. c) People present at the hearing on 2 July seemed to agree that the tenants caused the damage claimed by the landlord in his application
Present at the hearing on 2 July was the landlord, the tenants and their support person [The tenant/s support person]. The tenants’ witness [the tenant’s witness] gave evidence on that day. My decision was made based on the submissions and evidence presented. My notes, taken during the hearing, do not support this allegation raised by the landlord.
My order records the tenants’ liability under the landlord’s claim for lawns and missing curtains. Apart from those items I did not find the tenants had caused the damage claimed by Mr Sagoo. Regardless, as I have set out above, and as Adjudicator Woodhouse has recorded in his order, rehearings “are about challenges to processes and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made” 2 . 2 Loh v Puri [2019] [2019] NZGC 1993 d)The landlord only went to the tenancy premises with the permission of the female tenant; and e)The tenants have assaulted the landlord on more than one occasion including during the tenancy;
The issue of the landlord going to the premises and the alleged assault on the landlord when at the premises was discussed at hearings of the claims. The landlord’s view on these matters is not a ground that a rehearing is able to be granted on.
Any alleged assaults that took place after the tenancy ended are not matters that the Tribunal would consider either in making a decision or in considering a rehearing. That is, only matters that occur during the tenancy are matters that the Tribunal considers. f)Justice has not been done; the adjudicator was biased.
My order was made after considering all of the submissions and evidence presented by both parties during the entire hearing of all claims. The parties had plenty of opportunity over the three hearings to present their views and evidence. I have no reason to be biased; I have no personal knowledge of either party outside of the Tribunal.
Accordingly for the reasons set out above the order of 6 August 2025 remains in force and the landlord’s application for rehearing is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855460 — Rent arrears at 85B Avalon Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855460 — Rent arrears at 85B Avalon Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions