What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5070818 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 5070818?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5070818?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5070818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11406702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5070818 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 5070818?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5070818?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5070818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11406702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7C Buisson Glade, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5070818 — Rent arrears

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water, lock replacement, reduction of the fixed term tenancy and release of the bond.
On 31 December 2024, [The landlord/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that evidence was unable to be presented at the hearing as the property manager was overseas on holiday.
On 9 January 2025 [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she thought a new contract would be entered after termination of the tenancy. At the hearing held on 7 February 2025 to consider the rehearing application [The tenant/s] withdrew her application for rehearing.
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 [The landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The evidence that was unable to be produced at the hearing on 20 December 2024 was in relation to the landlord’s response to the termination requests made by the tenants. The application for a rehearing said that the landlord actively sought to assist the tenants.
At the hearing the landlord produced the evidence that could not be produced at the hearing, and it consisted of a timeline for telephone calls with the tenants and email communication with the tenants between 26 August 2024 and 1 October 2024.
The landlord submits that there has been an error in relation to the date when the tenancy was reduced and therefore the rent arrears owed by the tenants.
I have considered the evidence produced by the landlord. I note that both tenants had incorrectly given the landlord notice to end the fixed term tenancy. The first tenant gave notice on 26 August 2024 and the second tenant stated in an email shortly afterward that she agreed that the last day in the notice would also be her last day. That meant that on 26 August 2024 the tenants agreed to seek to end the tenancy.
The landlord did not produce any email communication in response to this notice. Instead, he said that he had telephone communication with one of the tenants, and I note that at the time there was significant conflict between the tenants so any advice he gave to one tenant was unlikely to have been communicated to the other. A joint email response from the landlord to both tenants would have been preferable.
The second tenant gave 28 days’ notice on 10 October 2024 to end the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that he did not respond to this notice. Also, an email dated 17 September 2024 was sent to the landlord from the Police in support of the tenancy terminating.
The landlord submitted that steps had been taken by the landlord to assist the tenants, but I note that there is no evidence of advising the process for ending the fixed term tenancy early or any response at all. The tenancy could have ended early if there was agreement between the parties.
I am not satisfied that the new evidence proves that the landlord took steps to assist the tenants and instead my conclusion that the landlord failed to mitigate the loss for the tenants is confirmed.
The order dated 20 December 2024 is confirmed.
I note that there was an error in the date in paragraph 3 of the order. Instead of 12 December 2025 it should be 12 December 2024.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water, lock replacement, reduction of the fixed term tenancy and release of the bond.
On 31 December 2024, [The landlord/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that evidence was unable to be presented at the hearing as the property manager was overseas on holiday.
On 9 January 2025 [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she thought a new contract would be entered after termination of the tenancy. At the hearing held on 7 February 2025 to consider the rehearing application [The tenant/s] withdrew her application for rehearing.
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 [The landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The evidence that was unable to be produced at the hearing on 20 December 2024 was in relation to the landlord’s response to the termination requests made by the tenants. The application for a rehearing said that the landlord actively sought to assist the tenants.
At the hearing the landlord produced the evidence that could not be produced at the hearing, and it consisted of a timeline for telephone calls with the tenants and email communication with the tenants between 26 August 2024 and 1 October 2024.
The landlord submits that there has been an error in relation to the date when the tenancy was reduced and therefore the rent arrears owed by the tenants.
I have considered the evidence produced by the landlord. I note that both tenants had incorrectly given the landlord notice to end the fixed term tenancy. The first tenant gave notice on 26 August 2024 and the second tenant stated in an email shortly afterward that she agreed that the last day in the notice would also be her last day. That meant that on 26 August 2024 the tenants agreed to seek to end the tenancy.
The landlord did not produce any email communication in response to this notice. Instead, he said that he had telephone communication with one of the tenants, and I note that at the time there was significant conflict between the tenants so any advice he gave to one tenant was unlikely to have been communicated to the other. A joint email response from the landlord to both tenants would have been preferable.
The second tenant gave 28 days’ notice on 10 October 2024 to end the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that he did not respond to this notice. Also, an email dated 17 September 2024 was sent to the landlord from the Police in support of the tenancy terminating.
The landlord submitted that steps had been taken by the landlord to assist the tenants, but I note that there is no evidence of advising the process for ending the fixed term tenancy early or any response at all. The tenancy could have ended early if there was agreement between the parties.
I am not satisfied that the new evidence proves that the landlord took steps to assist the tenants and instead my conclusion that the landlord failed to mitigate the loss for the tenants is confirmed.
The order dated 20 December 2024 is confirmed.
I note that there was an error in the date in paragraph 3 of the order. Instead of 12 December 2025 it should be 12 December 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5070818 — Rent arrears at 7C Buisson Glade, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5070818 — Rent arrears at 7C Buisson Glade, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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