What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244740?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5244740?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244740?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020752-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244740?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5244740?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244740?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020752-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 301, 13 Kaipatiki Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244740 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the video hearing. The tenant did not attend the video hearing.
Attempts were made to contact the tenant on the following phone numbers: a. 021 139632: provided by the tenant in their application for re-hearing; b. 021 0740127: the tenant contacted the landlord this morning and provided this number as contact for the hearing; and c. 027 2878109: provided by the landlord in the original application.
All calls made to the above numbers either went to voicemail or failed to connect.
On 14 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order immediately terminating the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated on the basis I was satisfied Kāinga Ora had proved it was more likely than not that Ms Ellis was not living at the premises as at 14 March 2025 and 31 March 2025. I was satisfied that on 27 February 2025 Kāinga Ora gave the tenant notice she was in breach of the tenancy agreement and provided the tenant with 14 days notice to remedy the breach. I was also satisfied it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because if Ms Ellis no longer requires assistance from the social housing provider, or chooses not to use the premises provided, the home should be made available to another person or family.
On 14 May 2025, Ms Ellis applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She is awaiting documents from “MSD and other government departments;” b. She did not receive a phone call for the hearing on 14 May 2025; c. Ms Ellis has a traumatic brain injury which requires her to take more time with day to day activities.
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”.
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?

Ms Ellis failed to attend the video hearing to consider her application for re- hearing. Attempts were made to contact her on all three known contact numbers.
The landlord submitted the application for re-hearing should be dismissed. The landlord says, while it would seem Ms Ellis had changed phone numbers at the time of the hearing, she has again not been contactable at the time of hearing.
The landlord says Ms Ellis has not filed any documents referred to in her application. There is no new evidence which would appear to affect the outcome (i.e. evidence that she was in fact living in her home in February and/or March 2025).
The landlord also says while the stay of proceedings is in place, the premises is unavailable for other tenants in need of social housing, therefore it is in the public interest that the stay be lifted, and the termination be enforced.
I agree with the landlord. The application for re-hearing is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
I have turned my mind to whether I could consider ordering a re-hearing based on the evidence filed in support of the application for re-hearing only. The tenant has not filed any evidence which, on its face, changes the ultimate outcome: that is, I am not satisfied the tenant has filed evidence which shows the tenant was living in the premises during February and/or March 2025.
That stay of proceedings is lifted and the order dated 14 May 2025 is enforceable.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the video hearing. The tenant did not attend the video hearing.
Attempts were made to contact the tenant on the following phone numbers: a. 021 139632: provided by the tenant in their application for re-hearing; b. 021 0740127: the tenant contacted the landlord this morning and provided this number as contact for the hearing; and c. 027 2878109: provided by the landlord in the original application.
All calls made to the above numbers either went to voicemail or failed to connect.
On 14 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order immediately terminating the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated on the basis I was satisfied Kāinga Ora had proved it was more likely than not that Ms Ellis was not living at the premises as at 14 March 2025 and 31 March 2025. I was satisfied that on 27 February 2025 Kāinga Ora gave the tenant notice she was in breach of the tenancy agreement and provided the tenant with 14 days notice to remedy the breach. I was also satisfied it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because if Ms Ellis no longer requires assistance from the social housing provider, or chooses not to use the premises provided, the home should be made available to another person or family.
On 14 May 2025, Ms Ellis applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She is awaiting documents from “MSD and other government departments;” b. She did not receive a phone call for the hearing on 14 May 2025; c. Ms Ellis has a traumatic brain injury which requires her to take more time with day to day activities.
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”.
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?

Ms Ellis failed to attend the video hearing to consider her application for re- hearing. Attempts were made to contact her on all three known contact numbers.
The landlord submitted the application for re-hearing should be dismissed. The landlord says, while it would seem Ms Ellis had changed phone numbers at the time of the hearing, she has again not been contactable at the time of hearing.
The landlord says Ms Ellis has not filed any documents referred to in her application. There is no new evidence which would appear to affect the outcome (i.e. evidence that she was in fact living in her home in February and/or March 2025).
The landlord also says while the stay of proceedings is in place, the premises is unavailable for other tenants in need of social housing, therefore it is in the public interest that the stay be lifted, and the termination be enforced.
I agree with the landlord. The application for re-hearing is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
I have turned my mind to whether I could consider ordering a re-hearing based on the evidence filed in support of the application for re-hearing only. The tenant has not filed any evidence which, on its face, changes the ultimate outcome: that is, I am not satisfied the tenant has filed evidence which shows the tenant was living in the premises during February and/or March 2025.
That stay of proceedings is lifted and the order dated 14 May 2025 is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244740 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 301, 13 Kaipatiki Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244740 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 301, 13 Kaipatiki Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

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