What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066015 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5066015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066015?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12178430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066015 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5066015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066015?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12178430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15B McCahill Views, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066015 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord name and identifying details are suppressed.
The application to extend time to file an application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted and the order dated 6 March 2025 may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing held by video conference on 24 July 2025.
The purpose of the hearing was to decide:- a. whether to allow a late application for rehearing to be filed, and b. if so, whether to grant a rehearing of the original application.
On 6 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the tenant pay the landlord $3,549.00 for loss of rent (due to the early ending of a fixed term tenancy), unpaid water rates, and the filing fee. 1
The tenant was not present at the first hearing and has now applied for a rehearing. 1 An earlier order was issued on 4 March 2025 which mistakenly referred to the filing fee as “carpet cleaning”. The amended order was issued on 6 March 2025.
The rehearing application was made on 6 May 2025.
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.

Should the Tribunal allow a late application for rehearing to be made?

The first issue is whether the Tribunal should accept a late application for rehearing in this case.
Section 105(2) RTA states that an application for rehearing must be made: within 5 working days after the date of the decision, or within such further time as the Tribunal may allow.
The Tribunal file shows the application for rehearing was filed on 6 May 2025. This is far outside five working days from the date of the order.
Trent Brooke explained that he did file an application for rehearing earlier than this but that it was filed in the wrong Tribunal. He is not sure of the exact date but said he did this in person at the Manukau District Court.
He has supplied a letter dated 31 March 2025 from the Registrar of the Disputes Tribunal which he said he received in the post. This letter says that it has received an Application for Rehearing but that it appears this should have been filed in the Tenancy Tribunal. The letter includes another link to an information page for the Tenancy Tribunal.
Trent Brooke said that he then went back to the Manukau District Court, again in person, and filed the current application for rehearing.
I set out a timeline of relevant events: 11/11/2024landlord application to Tribunal 18/12/2024both parties are emailed Notice of Hearing and video hearing link 27/02/2025both parties are emailed and texted reminders of hearing date 03/03/2025both parties are emailed and texted reminders of hearing date 4/03/2025, 9:30am hearing held by video conference Landlord attends by video link. Tenant does not attend and his phone goes to voicemail when the Adjudicator telephones him at approximately 9:34am. Tenant says he telephones Tenancy Services but is told he cannot be connected to the video hearing. Tenant texts landlord at 9:48am saying he has been trying to get through and is she still on the phone. 4/03/2025First Tribunal order emailed to both parties 6/03/2025Second (amended) Tribunal order emailed to both parties 31/03/2025Disputes Tribunal receives and then withdraws an Application for Rehearing. Registrar posts a letter to the tenant advising him of the above and advising he will need to reapply with Tenancy Tribunal. 7/04/2025Attachment order made TTT-2025-092-066015 6/05/2025Tenant applies for a rehearing in the Tenancy Tribunal
I have decided not to grant an extension of time to file an application for a rehearing. My reasons are:- a. I accept that the tenant wanted to attend the video hearing but did not have remote access to his emails so could not access the video hearing link on the day and missed my call when I tried to telephone him. b. However, this application for rehearing was filed in the Tenancy Tribunal 35 working days after the order dated 6 March 2025 was emailed to the parties. The first application for a rehearing was filed in the Disputes Tribunal on 31 March 2025 which is 17 working days after the date of the order. The tenant has given no explanation for the delay filing his first application or the further delay from when he was notified he had filed in the wrong Tribunal. c. The purpose of the five-day time limit is to ensure finality and certainty of Tenancy Tribunal orders. To allow orders to be challenged many days or weeks after the event disrupts court efficiency and makes enforcement more difficult.

Has a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or may be likely to occur?

Even if I did allow a late application for rehearing to be made, I am not satisfied that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
I asked the tenant why he thinks that the outcome of the substantive hearing would have been different if he had attended the hearing. This is relevant because if he cannot show that a new hearing would be likely to have a different outcome then a miscarriage of justice is unlikely.
Trent Brooke says that the outcome would be different because he had good reasons for ending the fixed term tenancy early. He described maintenance concerns and a more personal behavioural concern about one of the property managers.
The maintenance concerns mentioned are relatively minor (seals on the shower and outside lights not working) and would not justify the unilateral termination of a contract.
The tenant emphasised the significance of the behavioural concern and said he and his family were so uncomfortable they moved out. However, his own evidence does not support this interpretation. The text message he supplied in evidence does refer to “unnerving behaviours” and alleged privacy breaches but ends by saying “No major but I wanted to explain this to you ....”.
I accept the landlord’s oral evidence in the recent hearing that the tenant did not notify them he had moved out until after he had done so.
The landlord was awarded rent arrears and loss of rent up to the day before new tenants were found which is the usual outcome when a tenant leaves a tenancy before the end of a fixed term.
In summary, the tenant has made a late application for a rehearing without good reason being shown for the delay and I am not satisfied that the outcome of the hearing would be any different even if a rehearing were granted.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The landlord name and identifying details are suppressed.
The application to extend time to file an application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted and the order dated 6 March 2025 may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing held by video conference on 24 July 2025.
The purpose of the hearing was to decide:- a. whether to allow a late application for rehearing to be filed, and b. if so, whether to grant a rehearing of the original application.
On 6 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the tenant pay the landlord $3,549.00 for loss of rent (due to the early ending of a fixed term tenancy), unpaid water rates, and the filing fee. 1
The tenant was not present at the first hearing and has now applied for a rehearing. 1 An earlier order was issued on 4 March 2025 which mistakenly referred to the filing fee as “carpet cleaning”. The amended order was issued on 6 March 2025.
The rehearing application was made on 6 May 2025.
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.

Should the Tribunal allow a late application for rehearing to be made?

The first issue is whether the Tribunal should accept a late application for rehearing in this case.
Section 105(2) RTA states that an application for rehearing must be made: within 5 working days after the date of the decision, or within such further time as the Tribunal may allow.
The Tribunal file shows the application for rehearing was filed on 6 May 2025. This is far outside five working days from the date of the order.
Trent Brooke explained that he did file an application for rehearing earlier than this but that it was filed in the wrong Tribunal. He is not sure of the exact date but said he did this in person at the Manukau District Court.
He has supplied a letter dated 31 March 2025 from the Registrar of the Disputes Tribunal which he said he received in the post. This letter says that it has received an Application for Rehearing but that it appears this should have been filed in the Tenancy Tribunal. The letter includes another link to an information page for the Tenancy Tribunal.
Trent Brooke said that he then went back to the Manukau District Court, again in person, and filed the current application for rehearing.
I set out a timeline of relevant events: 11/11/2024landlord application to Tribunal 18/12/2024both parties are emailed Notice of Hearing and video hearing link 27/02/2025both parties are emailed and texted reminders of hearing date 03/03/2025both parties are emailed and texted reminders of hearing date 4/03/2025, 9:30am hearing held by video conference Landlord attends by video link. Tenant does not attend and his phone goes to voicemail when the Adjudicator telephones him at approximately 9:34am. Tenant says he telephones Tenancy Services but is told he cannot be connected to the video hearing. Tenant texts landlord at 9:48am saying he has been trying to get through and is she still on the phone. 4/03/2025First Tribunal order emailed to both parties 6/03/2025Second (amended) Tribunal order emailed to both parties 31/03/2025Disputes Tribunal receives and then withdraws an Application for Rehearing. Registrar posts a letter to the tenant advising him of the above and advising he will need to reapply with Tenancy Tribunal. 7/04/2025Attachment order made TTT-2025-092-066015 6/05/2025Tenant applies for a rehearing in the Tenancy Tribunal
I have decided not to grant an extension of time to file an application for a rehearing. My reasons are:- a. I accept that the tenant wanted to attend the video hearing but did not have remote access to his emails so could not access the video hearing link on the day and missed my call when I tried to telephone him. b. However, this application for rehearing was filed in the Tenancy Tribunal 35 working days after the order dated 6 March 2025 was emailed to the parties. The first application for a rehearing was filed in the Disputes Tribunal on 31 March 2025 which is 17 working days after the date of the order. The tenant has given no explanation for the delay filing his first application or the further delay from when he was notified he had filed in the wrong Tribunal. c. The purpose of the five-day time limit is to ensure finality and certainty of Tenancy Tribunal orders. To allow orders to be challenged many days or weeks after the event disrupts court efficiency and makes enforcement more difficult.

Has a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or may be likely to occur?

Even if I did allow a late application for rehearing to be made, I am not satisfied that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
I asked the tenant why he thinks that the outcome of the substantive hearing would have been different if he had attended the hearing. This is relevant because if he cannot show that a new hearing would be likely to have a different outcome then a miscarriage of justice is unlikely.
Trent Brooke says that the outcome would be different because he had good reasons for ending the fixed term tenancy early. He described maintenance concerns and a more personal behavioural concern about one of the property managers.
The maintenance concerns mentioned are relatively minor (seals on the shower and outside lights not working) and would not justify the unilateral termination of a contract.
The tenant emphasised the significance of the behavioural concern and said he and his family were so uncomfortable they moved out. However, his own evidence does not support this interpretation. The text message he supplied in evidence does refer to “unnerving behaviours” and alleged privacy breaches but ends by saying “No major but I wanted to explain this to you ....”.
I accept the landlord’s oral evidence in the recent hearing that the tenant did not notify them he had moved out until after he had done so.
The landlord was awarded rent arrears and loss of rent up to the day before new tenants were found which is the usual outcome when a tenant leaves a tenancy before the end of a fixed term.
In summary, the tenant has made a late application for a rehearing without good reason being shown for the delay and I am not satisfied that the outcome of the hearing would be any different even if a rehearing were granted.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066015 — Rent arrears at 15B McCahill Views, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066015 — Rent arrears at 15B McCahill Views, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal allow a late application for rehearing to be made?

Has a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or may be likely to occur?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal allow a late application for rehearing to be made?

Has a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or may be likely to occur?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions