What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103905 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5103905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103905?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11682375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103905 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5103905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103905?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11682375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Edinburgh Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103905 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

A representative of the Landlord attended the hearing by telephone.

The applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The application was initially scheduled for an in person hearing in Timaru. The mode of hearing was changed to telephone, at the same date and time. Mr Chamberlain was advised of the change on 2 April 2025; by text message and post.

I attempted to call Mr Chamberlain three times during the hearing; twice to his mobile and once to his landline. The calls to mobile went to voicemail and the one to his landline was not answered.

Mr Chamberlain has applied for a work order regarding the driveway and fence. In his application, he refers to this as a request for reinstatement of access to his property.

The landlord made written submissions in response to the application. In particular, the landlord says that these issues have already been determined by the Tribunal and cannot be reconsidered in a fresh application.

I reviewed the file and the previous application and made the following directions; sent to Mr Chamberlain on 2 April 2025: “The hearing scheduled for 7 April 2025 at 10am will be conducted by telephone, you do NOT need to attend the Timaru Court. The Adjudicator has noted the following "The landlord has submitted a response to the claim, the landlord says that the issues in the application have already been determined by the Tribunal and cannot be revisited in a fresh application. The tenant's application also states that "reinstatement of access to the property" was previously heard by the Tribunal and an Order applied. The previous Order [2021] NZTT Timaru 4285726 has been reviewed, and it appears to relate to exactly the same issues as the current application. If Mr Chamberlain wanted to challenge the previous order, the correct approach would have been to apply for a rehearing or appeal. He is now well out of time for both. If Mr Chamberlain wishes to proceed with this application, he will have to identify what, if any, of the current issues were not determined in the previous application. He will also have to explain the basis on which he says the Tribunal can now consider issues determined in the previous application."”

Mr Chamberlain did not respond to those directions and did not attend the hearing.

I find that the matters raised in this application are Res Judicata; they have been determined and cannot be re-opened in this application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the Landlord attended the hearing by telephone.

The applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I attempted to call Mr Chamberlain three times during the hearing; twice to his mobile and once to his landline. The calls to mobile went to voicemail and the one to his landline was not answered.

Mr Chamberlain has applied for a work order regarding the driveway and fence. In his application, he refers to this as a request for reinstatement of access to his property.

Mr Chamberlain did not respond to those directions and did not attend the hearing.

I find that the matters raised in this application are Res Judicata; they have been determined and cannot be re-opened in this application. The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103905 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Edinburgh Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103905 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Edinburgh Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions