What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5047328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5047328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047328?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5047328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5047328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047328?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

149 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Everdell Guest Tenancy Tribunal Case 5047328 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the first hearing on 21 February 2025.
On 7 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenant $250.00.
On 28 March 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing.
On 1 August 2025, a hearing was held to consider whether a rehearing should be granted with both parties in attendance. The law
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. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims a rehearing should be granted for the following reasons: a. The tenant made four payments of rent for $190.00 on 31 May 2023, 7 June 2023, 14 June 2023 and 21 June 2023. The tenant claims these payments have not been credited in the landlord’s rent summary and therefore, the Tribunal’s decision is wrong. b. The tenant made four payments of rent for $190.00 on 1 May 2024, 8 May 2024, 15 May 2024, 22 May 2024 and 29 May 2024. The tenant claims these payments have also not been credited in the landlord’s rent summary and therefore, the Tribunal’s decision is wrong. c. The landlord’s rent summary does not record the fact that the tenant paid the landlord $1,050.00 at the beginning of the tenancy or where this money has been credited.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant submitted a copy of the rent summary that the landlord filed with their cross-application. It records that the tenant did not pay rent on the following dates: a. 29 May 2023 b. 5 June 2023 c. 12 June 2023 d. 19 June 2023
The tenant claims they did pay rent on these dates and submitted a copy of their bank statement, which shows they made payments of $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023
The original rent summary filed by the landlord with their cross-application was completed by hand. At the hearing on 21 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it contained an administrative error. The landlord had incorrectly recorded “2023” as the year for payments of rent due between 14 February 2024 – 19 June 2024. The landlord submitted an amended rent summary at the hearing, which records the correct year.
A copy of the amended rent summary was provided to the tenant at the hearing on 21 February 2025 and again today on 1 August 2025.
The amended rent summary correctly records the fact that the tenant paid $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023
It also correctly records that the tenant paid $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 1 May 2024 (for the period covering 24/04/2024 – 30/04/2024) b. 8 May 2024 (for the period covering 01/05/2024 – 07/05/2024) c. 15 May 2024 (for the period covering 08/05/2024 – 14/05/2024) d. 22 May 2024 (for the period covering 15/05/2024 – 21/05/2024) e. 29 May 2024 (for the period covering 22/05/2024 – 28/05/2024)
The landlord has applied these rental payments to the rental period for the previous week. This is because the tenant did not pay rent on 17 January 2024 and fell into arrears of $190.00. Since then, the landlord has applied any payment of rent made by the tenant to the previous week.
The fact that the rent summary submitted with the landlord’s application contained an administrative error, together with the fact that the landlord has applied payments of rent made by the tenant to the rental period for the previous week since 17 January 2024, means it has been confusing and difficult for the tenant to match the landlord’s rent summary with their own bank statements showing the dates the tenant paid rent.
The landlord advised that they have recently invested in software to assist them with producing consistent rent summaries, which I am glad to hear. This should hopefully prevent any confusion arising again in the future.
I have carefully analysed the amended rent summary provided by the landlord at the hearing on 21 February 2025 and am satisfied that it correctly records what the tenant claims, namely that they paid rent to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023 e. 1 May 2024 f. 8 May 2024 g. 15 May 2024 h. 22 May 2024 i. 29 May 2024
I based my decision upon the amended rent summary, which I am satisfied is correct. Therefore, I am convinced that my decision was made on the basis of the correct information and no error, substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The tenant further claims that the landlord’s rent summary does not record what happened with the tenant’s payment of $1,050.00 to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant is correct in this assessment, and I factored this into my decision dated 7 March 2025.
In my decision, I found the tenant paid the landlord $1,050.00 at the beginning of the tenancy for bond ($350.00) and two weeks rent in advance ($700.00). The landlord’s rent summary does not start from the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, the landlord was unable to prove that the two weeks rent in advance paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy was properly credited. In these circumstances, I found it appropriate to credit the payment of two weeks rent in advance paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy to the end of the tenancy. The tenant owed rent arrears of $787.14 at the end of the tenancy. I credited the payment of two weeks rent in advance made by them at the beginning of the tenancy to these arrears, which reduced the arrears to $87.14. I then wiped the remaining $87.14 for the tenant.
In respect of the bond of $350.00, I ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $100.00 to reflect the fact that his room was not left reasonably clean and tidy, which left a balance of $250.00 to be paid to the tenant by the landlord.
I agree with the tenant that the rent summary does not reflect what happened with the tenant’s payment of $1,050.00 for bond and two weeks rent in advance paid at the beginning of the tenancy. I was aware of this at the first hearing and considered it as part of my overall decision. Therefore, I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in respect of this issue either.
For the above reasons, the tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the first hearing on 21 February 2025.
On 7 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenant $250.00.
On 28 March 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing.
On 1 August 2025, a hearing was held to consider whether a rehearing should be granted with both parties in attendance. The law
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. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims a rehearing should be granted for the following reasons: a. The tenant made four payments of rent for $190.00 on 31 May 2023, 7 June 2023, 14 June 2023 and 21 June 2023. The tenant claims these payments have not been credited in the landlord’s rent summary and therefore, the Tribunal’s decision is wrong. b. The tenant made four payments of rent for $190.00 on 1 May 2024, 8 May 2024, 15 May 2024, 22 May 2024 and 29 May 2024. The tenant claims these payments have also not been credited in the landlord’s rent summary and therefore, the Tribunal’s decision is wrong. c. The landlord’s rent summary does not record the fact that the tenant paid the landlord $1,050.00 at the beginning of the tenancy or where this money has been credited.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant submitted a copy of the rent summary that the landlord filed with their cross-application. It records that the tenant did not pay rent on the following dates: a. 29 May 2023 b. 5 June 2023 c. 12 June 2023 d. 19 June 2023
The tenant claims they did pay rent on these dates and submitted a copy of their bank statement, which shows they made payments of $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023
The original rent summary filed by the landlord with their cross-application was completed by hand. At the hearing on 21 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it contained an administrative error. The landlord had incorrectly recorded “2023” as the year for payments of rent due between 14 February 2024 – 19 June 2024. The landlord submitted an amended rent summary at the hearing, which records the correct year.
A copy of the amended rent summary was provided to the tenant at the hearing on 21 February 2025 and again today on 1 August 2025.
The amended rent summary correctly records the fact that the tenant paid $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023
It also correctly records that the tenant paid $190.00 to the landlord on the following dates: a. 1 May 2024 (for the period covering 24/04/2024 – 30/04/2024) b. 8 May 2024 (for the period covering 01/05/2024 – 07/05/2024) c. 15 May 2024 (for the period covering 08/05/2024 – 14/05/2024) d. 22 May 2024 (for the period covering 15/05/2024 – 21/05/2024) e. 29 May 2024 (for the period covering 22/05/2024 – 28/05/2024)
The landlord has applied these rental payments to the rental period for the previous week. This is because the tenant did not pay rent on 17 January 2024 and fell into arrears of $190.00. Since then, the landlord has applied any payment of rent made by the tenant to the previous week.
The fact that the rent summary submitted with the landlord’s application contained an administrative error, together with the fact that the landlord has applied payments of rent made by the tenant to the rental period for the previous week since 17 January 2024, means it has been confusing and difficult for the tenant to match the landlord’s rent summary with their own bank statements showing the dates the tenant paid rent.
The landlord advised that they have recently invested in software to assist them with producing consistent rent summaries, which I am glad to hear. This should hopefully prevent any confusion arising again in the future.
I have carefully analysed the amended rent summary provided by the landlord at the hearing on 21 February 2025 and am satisfied that it correctly records what the tenant claims, namely that they paid rent to the landlord on the following dates: a. 31 May 2023 b. 7 June 2023 c. 14 June 2023 d. 21 June 2023 e. 1 May 2024 f. 8 May 2024 g. 15 May 2024 h. 22 May 2024 i. 29 May 2024
I based my decision upon the amended rent summary, which I am satisfied is correct. Therefore, I am convinced that my decision was made on the basis of the correct information and no error, substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The tenant further claims that the landlord’s rent summary does not record what happened with the tenant’s payment of $1,050.00 to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant is correct in this assessment, and I factored this into my decision dated 7 March 2025.
In my decision, I found the tenant paid the landlord $1,050.00 at the beginning of the tenancy for bond ($350.00) and two weeks rent in advance ($700.00). The landlord’s rent summary does not start from the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, the landlord was unable to prove that the two weeks rent in advance paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy was properly credited. In these circumstances, I found it appropriate to credit the payment of two weeks rent in advance paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy to the end of the tenancy. The tenant owed rent arrears of $787.14 at the end of the tenancy. I credited the payment of two weeks rent in advance made by them at the beginning of the tenancy to these arrears, which reduced the arrears to $87.14. I then wiped the remaining $87.14 for the tenant.
In respect of the bond of $350.00, I ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $100.00 to reflect the fact that his room was not left reasonably clean and tidy, which left a balance of $250.00 to be paid to the tenant by the landlord.
I agree with the tenant that the rent summary does not reflect what happened with the tenant’s payment of $1,050.00 for bond and two weeks rent in advance paid at the beginning of the tenancy. I was aware of this at the first hearing and considered it as part of my overall decision. Therefore, I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in respect of this issue either.
For the above reasons, the tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5047328 — Rent arrears at 149 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Everdell Guest

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5047328 — Rent arrears at 149 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023, Everdell Guest

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions