What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072328?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5072328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11793790-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072328?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5072328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11793790-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

169 Turere Lane, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu 3800 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072328 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord appeared by telephone.

The landlord’s application was filed on 15 January 2025 and scheduled for an in person hearing on 21 February 2025. On that date, the landlord appeared, there was no appearance by the tenant. On 24 February 2025, the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, compensation for rubbish removal and power re connection. The Tribunal dismissed the claims made for cleaning, damage to the letter box, and outstanding water rates.

On 26 February 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: “Due to being unfamiliar with the Court Procedure we dispute the decision of the following... we did not know that just having invoices for damages was not sufficient and that we needed photos of the before and after”.

Included with the application for rehearing the landlord has now provided before and after photographs of the letter box, a photograph of the toilet, water rates invoices, a letter from their cleaner dated 03 March 2025 , and an email from the tenant dated 05 July 2024 consenting to $800.00 being taken from the bond to cover the repair to the letter box.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act) 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.

In the case of Sutton v Trenwith, Auckland TT1107/89, 30 September 1992, the Tribunal considered that a rehearing may be granted where there was new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, which if introduced at the original hearing, 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The onus was on the landlord to establish more likely than not that the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement of provisions of the Act.

The sufficiency of evidence was discussed at the hearing. The landlord stated that they were unaware of the requirement for supporting evidence, believing that their oral evidence and the invoices would be sufficient. It was not. The landlord declined several opportunities for an adjournment to provide further evidence. The landlord now seeks a rehearing of the matter, advancing the same argument that they were not aware of the requirement to produce evidence.

I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. The new evidence produced would have been reasonably available at the time of the first hearing. The landlord did not produce the evidence because they believed it was not required. Furthermore, a rehearing cannot be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

The landlord’s application for a rehearing is declined.

Reasons

The landlord appeared by telephone.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The onus was on the landlord to establish more likely than not that the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement of provisions of the Act.

The landlord’s application for a rehearing is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072328 — Rent arrears at 169 Turere Lane, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu 3800

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072328 — Rent arrears at 169 Turere Lane, Te Awamutu, Te Awamutu 3800

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