How much money was awarded in case 5103149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11511812-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5103149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11511812-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103149 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103149 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is granted.
The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the time, date, and place of the next hearing.
A different adjudicator will hear the claim.
If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they should send two copies to the Tribunal no later than 10 days after the date of this order, for service to the other party.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 February 2025.
On 22 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order refunding the bond to the tenant and requiring the landlord to pay the tenant a total of $3,527.00 in compensation for breaching section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
On 28 January 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they were not notified of the hearing.
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 reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and a rehearing is granted. See section 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement records the landlord’s “mailing address” as PO Box 23- 332 Auckland 2241. At the hearing on 28 February 2025, the landlord confirmed that this was their address for service. The notice of hearing was sent to this address. The landlord claims they check this PO Box and never received a copy of the notice of hearing.
When asked how the landlord came to know about the order issued on 22 January 2025, the landlord gave evidence that they were contacted by the tenant on their mobile phone.
A cell-phone number for the landlord is recorded on the tenancy agreement. I confirmed this number with the landlord at the hearing.
I cross-referenced the landlord’s cell-phone number against the details provided in the tenant’s application. The tenant provided two cell-phone numbers for the landlord. The first is the same number as provided by the landlord, however, the last two digits are recorded the wrong way around. The second number provided by the tenant is the correct number. Unfortunately, the court appears to have used the first number when sending text message alerts to the landlord. This explains why the landlord claims they did not receive any text message notifications about the hearing.
At the beginning of the hearing on 20 January 2025, the Tribunal tried to call the landlord. The landlord did not answer. The number dialled was the first number recorded in the tenant’s application, which is the wrong number.
No email address for the landlord is recorded in the tenancy agreement however, as part of their claim, the tenant submitted documents which show that they communicated with the landlord at the following email address – aucklandlaw@gmail.com. Unfortunately, the tenant has recorded “aucklaw@gmail.com” as the email address for the landlord in their written application. This is the email address the notice of hearing was sent to. It does not belong to the landlord.
The notice of hearing was posted to the landlord’s physical address for service however, there were errors regarding the landlord’s cell-phone number and email address. I do not consider the tenant purposefully made these errors. I have no doubt that they were administrative mistakes. Nonetheless, the fact that communications were sent to the landlord at the incorrect email address and cell-phone number is a procedural error.
I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred which prevented the landlord form receiving appropriate notice of the hearing. The application for a rehearing is granted.
The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services in writing of the time, date and place of the next hearing.

Order

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

The application for rehearing is granted.

The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the time, date, and place of the next hearing.

A different adjudicator will hear the claim.

If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they should send two copies to the Tribunal no later than 10 days after the date of this order, for service to the other party.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 February 2025.

On 22 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order refunding the bond to the tenant and requiring the landlord to pay the tenant a total of $3,527.00 in compensation for breaching section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

On 28 January 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they were not notified of the hearing.

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 reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and a rehearing is granted. See section 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement records the landlord’s “mailing address” as PO Box 23- 332 Auckland 2241. At the hearing on 28 February 2025, the landlord confirmed that this was their address for service. The notice of hearing was sent to this address. The landlord claims they check this PO Box and never received a copy of the notice of hearing.

When asked how the landlord came to know about the order issued on 22 January 2025, the landlord gave evidence that they were contacted by the tenant on their mobile phone.

A cell-phone number for the landlord is recorded on the tenancy agreement. I confirmed this number with the landlord at the hearing.

I cross-referenced the landlord’s cell-phone number against the details provided in the tenant’s application. The tenant provided two cell-phone numbers for the landlord. The first is the same number as provided by the landlord, however, the last two digits are recorded the wrong way around. The second number provided by the tenant is the correct number. Unfortunately, the court appears to have used the first number when sending text message alerts to the landlord. This explains why the landlord claims they did not receive any text message notifications about the hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing on 20 January 2025, the Tribunal tried to call the landlord. The landlord did not answer. The number dialled was the first number recorded in the tenant’s application, which is the wrong number.

No email address for the landlord is recorded in the tenancy agreement however, as part of their claim, the tenant submitted documents which show that they communicated with the landlord at the following email address – aucklandlaw@gmail.com. Unfortunately, the tenant has recorded “aucklaw@gmail.com” as the email address for the landlord in their written application. This is the email address the notice of hearing was sent to. It does not belong to the landlord.

The notice of hearing was posted to the landlord’s physical address for service however, there were errors regarding the landlord’s cell-phone number and email address. I do not consider the tenant purposefully made these errors. I have no doubt that they were administrative mistakes. Nonetheless, the fact that communications were sent to the landlord at the incorrect email address and cell-phone number is a procedural error.

I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred which prevented the landlord form receiving appropriate notice of the hearing. The application for a rehearing is granted.

The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services in writing of the time, date and place of the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103149 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103149 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions