What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020348 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5020348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020348?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12674073-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020348 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5020348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020348?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12674073-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020348 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 10 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order for Mr Safar to pay compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond to the Landlord.

On 13 August 2025, Mr Safar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a) Mr Safar was concerned about the amount they were directed to the pay the Landlord and why it had increased from the initial hearing to the second hearing. He was uncertain how he would pay this given he just secured employment. b) Mr Safar stated the amount awarded to the Landlord was exaggerated and he questioned the photos provided by the Landlord of the property which were taken during past inspections. He stated they did not reflect how the Tenants left the house. c) Mr Safar had stated the photos provided by the Landlord did not provide dates and were from past inspections. They did not reflect how the Tenants left the property.

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, Mr Safar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The reasons provided by Mr Safar indicate that he is not happy with the decision of the Adjudicator in awarding the amount to the Landlord and he does not agree with the evidence that was presented by the Landlord. He stated some of the photographs provided did not provide time stamps and did not reflect how they left the property.

A rehearing is not granted because the Tribunal was wrong with its findings or the Tenants are not happy with how the Tribunal reached their decision. It is not granted because the Adjudicator accepted the Landlords photographs which the Tenant states were inaccurate. The law also does not provide for the Tribunal to take into account the Tenants financial circumstances in making these decisions.

For these reasons the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 10 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order for Mr Safar to pay compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond to the Landlord.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, Mr Safar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

For these reasons the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020348 — Healthy homes at 37 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020348 — Healthy homes at 37 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions