What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5116788?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5116788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755678-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5116788?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5116788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755678-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 142 Ocean Road, Ohope 3121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116788 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.
After the hearing on 26 February 2025, which was attended only by the landlord, I terminated the tenancy on grounds of substantial rent arrears.
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?

The tenant says that she missed the call during the initial hearing on 26 February 2025 because it clashed with her child’s sports day. The tenant wants to be heard; she says that WINZ (Work and Income of the Ministry of Social Development) was unable to redirect her benefit to the landlord for the rent payments because the landlord’s supplier code with WINZ had lapsed. The tenant also says that the landlord refused to sign the necessary paperwork with WINZ. The tenant explained that those were the reasons why the rent fell behind.
The landlord acknowledges having been contacted by WINZ about being a “supplier” but because he was not prepared to add the tenant’s partner/boyfriend as tenant, WINZ did not approve the redirection of benefit.
I accept that the above issues with WINZ documentation and redirection of benefit towards rent are partly attributable to the landlord’s refusal to come to the table.
However, I consider that the tenant alone remains liable to pay the rent to the landlord.
It was for the tenant to ensure that she has the means to pay rent, whether from gifts, grants, income, savings, benefit or other means.
The tenancy agreement obliges the tenant to pay weekly rent. It also provides for payment of a bond.
There is nothing on the tenancy agreement which renders the tenant’s obligation to pay rent conditional upon the landlord supplying a supplier’s code to WINZ or completing necessary WINZ paperwork.
Ultimately the rent is substantially in arrears and this fact is not disputed.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The rent arrears as at the date of hearing on 26 February 2025 was $12,257.14. The tenant had the benefit of unpaid accommodation during the entire period she was at the premises.
There remains nothing in the tenant’s rehearing application which provides any cogent defence to the landlord’s claim of substantial rent owing. No rent or bond has been paid since the start of the tenancy. The tenancy has since been terminated and the tenant has already vacated the premises.
The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail and my order of 26 February 2025 stands.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.
After the hearing on 26 February 2025, which was attended only by the landlord, I terminated the tenancy on grounds of substantial rent arrears.
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?

The tenant says that she missed the call during the initial hearing on 26 February 2025 because it clashed with her child’s sports day. The tenant wants to be heard; she says that WINZ (Work and Income of the Ministry of Social Development) was unable to redirect her benefit to the landlord for the rent payments because the landlord’s supplier code with WINZ had lapsed. The tenant also says that the landlord refused to sign the necessary paperwork with WINZ. The tenant explained that those were the reasons why the rent fell behind.
The landlord acknowledges having been contacted by WINZ about being a “supplier” but because he was not prepared to add the tenant’s partner/boyfriend as tenant, WINZ did not approve the redirection of benefit.
I accept that the above issues with WINZ documentation and redirection of benefit towards rent are partly attributable to the landlord’s refusal to come to the table.
However, I consider that the tenant alone remains liable to pay the rent to the landlord.
It was for the tenant to ensure that she has the means to pay rent, whether from gifts, grants, income, savings, benefit or other means.
The tenancy agreement obliges the tenant to pay weekly rent. It also provides for payment of a bond.
There is nothing on the tenancy agreement which renders the tenant’s obligation to pay rent conditional upon the landlord supplying a supplier’s code to WINZ or completing necessary WINZ paperwork.
Ultimately the rent is substantially in arrears and this fact is not disputed.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The rent arrears as at the date of hearing on 26 February 2025 was $12,257.14. The tenant had the benefit of unpaid accommodation during the entire period she was at the premises.
There remains nothing in the tenant’s rehearing application which provides any cogent defence to the landlord’s claim of substantial rent owing. No rent or bond has been paid since the start of the tenancy. The tenancy has since been terminated and the tenant has already vacated the premises.
The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail and my order of 26 February 2025 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116788 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 142 Ocean Road, Ohope 3121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116788 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 142 Ocean Road, Ohope 3121

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