What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224051 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5224051?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12058562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224051 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5224051?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12058562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 123 Campbell Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224051 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224051 — net $1,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,300.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,727.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,727.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 16 May 2025 is lifted.

Reasons

Background

Following a hearing on 7 May 2025, on 8 May 2025, the Tribunal made the following orders: a. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details. b. The tenancy of Taira Titito Seimata Williams at Unit/Flat 3, 123 Campbell Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s]. c. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. d. The Tenant must pay the Landlord $1,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$4,300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,327.00 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,727.00 The rehearing applications
On 8 May 2025, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur because information was withheld, and relevant evidence was not available and therefore was not considered by the Adjudicator. The Tenant provided no evidence or other information in support of that application.
A rehearing application hearing was held on 29 May 2025. On the morning of the hearing, the Tenant emailed the Registry advising: “Please reschedule tenancy tribunal. I am unable to attend for my son is unwell”.
No other information in support of an application for adjournment was provided.
On my instruction, the Registry advised the Tenant that the information she has provided does not justify an adjournment, and that if she has further evidence in support of an adjournment application, she must provide it immediately. The Tenant was also advised that she can attend the hearing remotely from home.
The Tenant did not attend the hearing and provided no further information in support of an adjournment application. I then tried to call her twice, using the number she provided on the rehearing application form. She did not answer those calls.
I then proceeded with the hearing without the Tenant, and based on the information I had, I dismissed the rehearing application.
The Tenant then filed a further rehearing application, saying that she was unable to attend the first rehearing application hearing due to an unwell child. In support, she has now provided a document from a doctor showing her son saw a medical professional on 26 May 2025. By a fine margin, I agree to hold a further hearing to consider whether a rehearing should occur.
That further rehearing application hearing occurred on 1 July 2025. Both parties attended that rehearing application hearing, and this decision records the outcome of that hearing. The law
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to rehearings, and states: (1)The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
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. The Tenant’s grounds for a rehearing
At the start of the hearing, the Tenant submitted three grounds for why a rehearing should be granted: a. the Landlord had provided misleading information to the Tribunal in support of its application; b. she had now paid all rent arrears; and c. she had raised concerns with the Landlord about the condition of the premises, and the Landlord had not addressed those concerns.
It became apparent during the hearing that she also relied on a fourth ground – that she had not been told that she was in rent arrears and that the Landlord was seeking to terminate her tenancy for those arrears. The misleading information
The alleged misleading information related to two 14-day notices relating to anti- social behaviour issued by the Landlord. The Landlord did not rely on those notices in support of its application, and neither did I consider those notices in making my finding that the tenancy should be terminated for rent arrears. Accordingly, this allegedly misleading information does not constitute grounds for a rehearing as it was not relevant to the outcome and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. The Tenant has now paid the rent
The rent was in arrears by more than 21 days at the date I made my decision. In my decision, and in reliance on information provided by the Landlord, I found that the Tenant was more than 40 days in arrears.
The Tenant says that she had paid one week’s rent arrears before the hearing occurred, but even then, she remained at least 33 days in arrears. That evidence shows that the Tenant remained in arrears by more than 21 days as at the date of the decision. Those were the grounds upon which I ordered termination of the tenancy and I consider that there was no significant flaw in my decision sufficient to conclude that there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Tenant has now repaid the rent arrears and is up to date on all rent payments. It seems that she contacted WINZ after I made my decision, which has cleared her outstanding arrears.
Unfortunately, that is not a ground to grant a rehearing. I cannot rewind my decision and consider remedial steps taken by the Tenant after that decision was made where those remedial steps could reasonably have been taken earlier. To avoid the termination of her tenancy, the Tenant needed to have paid the rent before the decision was made, not after. The Tenant was not told that the rent was in arrears
I also understood the Tenant to allege that the Landlord had not told her that the rent and that she was not told about the hearing or that the Landlord was seeking to terminate the tenancy due to rent arrears.
The evidence shows otherwise. The Landlord emailed a 14-day notice for rent arrears to the Tenant in March 2025. The Tenant also received the Landlord’s Tenancy Tribunal Application Form and the Notice of Hearing, which each set out the basis of the Landlord’s claim, including that the Landlord was seeking rent arrears and to terminate the tenancy. The Tribunal’s electronic file shows that both of those documents were sent to the Tenant – by email and by text message.
I therefore find that the Tenant was advised about the rent arrears and was provided with sufficient information about the nature of the claim and the hearing. The Tenant did not attend the hearing or otherwise engage with the Tribunal. That was her decision, and there has been no miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong. New evidence – the Tenant’s concerns about the condition of the premises.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The Tenant submitted that she had new evidence relevant to this claim. She said that she had complained to the Landlord about the condition of the premises, including water ingress, mould, and stained carpets.
That was not new evidence. The Tenant knew of those things at the time of the 7 May hearing. She did not present that evidence because she did not attend the hearing. The fact that she is now attempting to present that evidence to the Tribunal for the first time does not make it new evidence. Outcome
The application for a rehearing dismissed. The suppression orders made in the decision dated 8 May 2025 remain and the stay of proceedings granted on 16 May 2025 is lifted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224051 — net $1,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,300.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,727.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,727.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 16 May 2025 is lifted.

Reasons

Background

Following a hearing on 7 May 2025, on 8 May 2025, the Tribunal made the following orders: a. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details. b. The tenancy of Taira Titito Seimata Williams at Unit/Flat 3, 123 Campbell Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s]. c. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. d. The Tenant must pay the Landlord $1,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$4,300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,327.00 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,727.00 The rehearing applications
On 8 May 2025, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur because information was withheld, and relevant evidence was not available and therefore was not considered by the Adjudicator. The Tenant provided no evidence or other information in support of that application.
A rehearing application hearing was held on 29 May 2025. On the morning of the hearing, the Tenant emailed the Registry advising: “Please reschedule tenancy tribunal. I am unable to attend for my son is unwell”.
No other information in support of an application for adjournment was provided.
On my instruction, the Registry advised the Tenant that the information she has provided does not justify an adjournment, and that if she has further evidence in support of an adjournment application, she must provide it immediately. The Tenant was also advised that she can attend the hearing remotely from home.
The Tenant did not attend the hearing and provided no further information in support of an adjournment application. I then tried to call her twice, using the number she provided on the rehearing application form. She did not answer those calls.
I then proceeded with the hearing without the Tenant, and based on the information I had, I dismissed the rehearing application.
The Tenant then filed a further rehearing application, saying that she was unable to attend the first rehearing application hearing due to an unwell child. In support, she has now provided a document from a doctor showing her son saw a medical professional on 26 May 2025. By a fine margin, I agree to hold a further hearing to consider whether a rehearing should occur.
That further rehearing application hearing occurred on 1 July 2025. Both parties attended that rehearing application hearing, and this decision records the outcome of that hearing. The law
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to rehearings, and states: (1)The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
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. The Tenant’s grounds for a rehearing
At the start of the hearing, the Tenant submitted three grounds for why a rehearing should be granted: a. the Landlord had provided misleading information to the Tribunal in support of its application; b. she had now paid all rent arrears; and c. she had raised concerns with the Landlord about the condition of the premises, and the Landlord had not addressed those concerns.
It became apparent during the hearing that she also relied on a fourth ground – that she had not been told that she was in rent arrears and that the Landlord was seeking to terminate her tenancy for those arrears. The misleading information
The alleged misleading information related to two 14-day notices relating to anti- social behaviour issued by the Landlord. The Landlord did not rely on those notices in support of its application, and neither did I consider those notices in making my finding that the tenancy should be terminated for rent arrears. Accordingly, this allegedly misleading information does not constitute grounds for a rehearing as it was not relevant to the outcome and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. The Tenant has now paid the rent
The rent was in arrears by more than 21 days at the date I made my decision. In my decision, and in reliance on information provided by the Landlord, I found that the Tenant was more than 40 days in arrears.
The Tenant says that she had paid one week’s rent arrears before the hearing occurred, but even then, she remained at least 33 days in arrears. That evidence shows that the Tenant remained in arrears by more than 21 days as at the date of the decision. Those were the grounds upon which I ordered termination of the tenancy and I consider that there was no significant flaw in my decision sufficient to conclude that there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Tenant has now repaid the rent arrears and is up to date on all rent payments. It seems that she contacted WINZ after I made my decision, which has cleared her outstanding arrears.
Unfortunately, that is not a ground to grant a rehearing. I cannot rewind my decision and consider remedial steps taken by the Tenant after that decision was made where those remedial steps could reasonably have been taken earlier. To avoid the termination of her tenancy, the Tenant needed to have paid the rent before the decision was made, not after. The Tenant was not told that the rent was in arrears
I also understood the Tenant to allege that the Landlord had not told her that the rent and that she was not told about the hearing or that the Landlord was seeking to terminate the tenancy due to rent arrears.
The evidence shows otherwise. The Landlord emailed a 14-day notice for rent arrears to the Tenant in March 2025. The Tenant also received the Landlord’s Tenancy Tribunal Application Form and the Notice of Hearing, which each set out the basis of the Landlord’s claim, including that the Landlord was seeking rent arrears and to terminate the tenancy. The Tribunal’s electronic file shows that both of those documents were sent to the Tenant – by email and by text message.
I therefore find that the Tenant was advised about the rent arrears and was provided with sufficient information about the nature of the claim and the hearing. The Tenant did not attend the hearing or otherwise engage with the Tribunal. That was her decision, and there has been no miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong. New evidence – the Tenant’s concerns about the condition of the premises.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The Tenant submitted that she had new evidence relevant to this claim. She said that she had complained to the Landlord about the condition of the premises, including water ingress, mould, and stained carpets.
That was not new evidence. The Tenant knew of those things at the time of the 7 May hearing. She did not present that evidence because she did not attend the hearing. The fact that she is now attempting to present that evidence to the Tribunal for the first time does not make it new evidence. Outcome
The application for a rehearing dismissed. The suppression orders made in the decision dated 8 May 2025 remain and the stay of proceedings granted on 16 May 2025 is lifted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224051 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 123 Campbell Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224051 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 123 Campbell Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions