What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104649 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5104649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11739133-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104649 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5104649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11739133-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 6 Kathleen Street, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5104649 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing yesterday morning, 22 April 2025. Following that hearing I immediately issued a “results” order, reinstating the termination order of 19 February 2025. I now provide the reasons for my order. Background
On 19 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy with effect from 22 February 2025. The Tribunal awarded rent arrears of about $15,000.00. I note that this amount is far more than the bond of $2,600.00.
On 26 February and 3 March 2025 the tenant filed applications for rehearing. The tenant’s two applications relate to the bond. There is evidently a disagreement between the tenant and other occupants about how the bond is shared. The tenant says the landlord failed to update the bond details at the Bond Centre so the bond would not be refunded to the right people. He also says that the other occupants (as tenants) should have been named in the Tribunal application.
The Tribunal made its order based on a tenancy agreement signed on 29 September 2023 for a fixed term from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024. With his rehearing application, the tenant provided a periodic tenancy agreement signed on 12 September 2024 starting from 6 August 2024. The main, possibly only, difference between the two documents is that the tenant and his sister were named as tenants in the 2023 tenancy agreement, whereas the tenant was named together with two other tenants in the 2024 tenancy agreement.
The tenant says that the arrangements changed: he went from paying the rent to the landlord with a contribution from his flatmates to the flatmates (now tenants) paying part of the rent directly to the landlord. The tenant says this changed the rent and therefore, the ownership shares in the bond. Power to order rehearing
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
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?

The landlord said they had not seen the 2024 tenancy agreement before, which I note was signed before their management began on 10 November 2024. The other two tenants named in the 2024 tenancy agreement were not included in this application. The Tribunal has not heard from them, and they have not approached the Tribunal with any concerns. The landlord says these two tenants are paying the rent and there was a suggestion that they may be allowed to continue to rent the premises. The landlord says the tenant is not paying his share of the rent and the rent arrears are now $20,930.00 to 26 April 2025.
The issue with the bond does not justify a rehearing. I remain of the view that the landlord was fully entitled to take the bond. It was security for the tenants’ obligations, whoever the tenants were. If there is an issue between the tenants inter se about who paid the bond, to whom, and who still owes a contribution or must make a repayment amongst themselves, that is a Disputes Tribunal matter. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between landlords and tenants and not disputes between tenants.
Further, while a landlord has obligations in relation to the receipt and lodgement of bonds under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, how the Bond Centre operates is a matter of practice and procedure. There is a provision requiring the Bond Centre to be notified if the landlord or tenant changes (section 21A(2)). That obligation appears to be on the incoming landlord or tenant and does not specifically relate to the bond.
Moreover, the issue with the bond does not alter the fact that there are extensive rent arrears which more than justified termination of the tenancy in February 2025. The arrears are worse and the need for termination is now even more pressing.
For these reasons, I find that the tenant has not established grounds for a rehearing. Rent arrears
The landlord also claims further rent arrears. My jurisdiction at this stage may well be limited to determining the rehearing application. I have reinstated the termination order, but that follows from the dismissal of the rehearing application. It also follows that the tenant remains liable to pay the rent arrears as previously ordered.
It does look, from the rent summary provided, that the tenant owes a total of $20,930.00 to 26 April 2025 and that the other flatmates/tenants have paid their share. However, I consider the appropriate course is for the landlord to file an application for the further rent arrears. I suggest that all tenants/flatmates are named in that application.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing yesterday morning, 22 April 2025. Following that hearing I immediately issued a “results” order, reinstating the termination order of 19 February 2025. I now provide the reasons for my order. Background
On 19 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy with effect from 22 February 2025. The Tribunal awarded rent arrears of about $15,000.00. I note that this amount is far more than the bond of $2,600.00.
On 26 February and 3 March 2025 the tenant filed applications for rehearing. The tenant’s two applications relate to the bond. There is evidently a disagreement between the tenant and other occupants about how the bond is shared. The tenant says the landlord failed to update the bond details at the Bond Centre so the bond would not be refunded to the right people. He also says that the other occupants (as tenants) should have been named in the Tribunal application.
The Tribunal made its order based on a tenancy agreement signed on 29 September 2023 for a fixed term from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024. With his rehearing application, the tenant provided a periodic tenancy agreement signed on 12 September 2024 starting from 6 August 2024. The main, possibly only, difference between the two documents is that the tenant and his sister were named as tenants in the 2023 tenancy agreement, whereas the tenant was named together with two other tenants in the 2024 tenancy agreement.
The tenant says that the arrangements changed: he went from paying the rent to the landlord with a contribution from his flatmates to the flatmates (now tenants) paying part of the rent directly to the landlord. The tenant says this changed the rent and therefore, the ownership shares in the bond. Power to order rehearing
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
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?

The landlord said they had not seen the 2024 tenancy agreement before, which I note was signed before their management began on 10 November 2024. The other two tenants named in the 2024 tenancy agreement were not included in this application. The Tribunal has not heard from them, and they have not approached the Tribunal with any concerns. The landlord says these two tenants are paying the rent and there was a suggestion that they may be allowed to continue to rent the premises. The landlord says the tenant is not paying his share of the rent and the rent arrears are now $20,930.00 to 26 April 2025.
The issue with the bond does not justify a rehearing. I remain of the view that the landlord was fully entitled to take the bond. It was security for the tenants’ obligations, whoever the tenants were. If there is an issue between the tenants inter se about who paid the bond, to whom, and who still owes a contribution or must make a repayment amongst themselves, that is a Disputes Tribunal matter. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between landlords and tenants and not disputes between tenants.
Further, while a landlord has obligations in relation to the receipt and lodgement of bonds under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, how the Bond Centre operates is a matter of practice and procedure. There is a provision requiring the Bond Centre to be notified if the landlord or tenant changes (section 21A(2)). That obligation appears to be on the incoming landlord or tenant and does not specifically relate to the bond.
Moreover, the issue with the bond does not alter the fact that there are extensive rent arrears which more than justified termination of the tenancy in February 2025. The arrears are worse and the need for termination is now even more pressing.
For these reasons, I find that the tenant has not established grounds for a rehearing. Rent arrears
The landlord also claims further rent arrears. My jurisdiction at this stage may well be limited to determining the rehearing application. I have reinstated the termination order, but that follows from the dismissal of the rehearing application. It also follows that the tenant remains liable to pay the rent arrears as previously ordered.
It does look, from the rent summary provided, that the tenant owes a total of $20,930.00 to 26 April 2025 and that the other flatmates/tenants have paid their share. However, I consider the appropriate course is for the landlord to file an application for the further rent arrears. I suggest that all tenants/flatmates are named in that application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104649 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Kathleen Street, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104649 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Kathleen Street, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.