What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5265961?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5265961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265961?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12332142-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5265961?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5265961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265961?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12332142-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Halswell Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265961 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 30 June 2025 in respect of the Order dated 23 June 2025 is lifted.
The tenancy of Amy Lupton at 46 Halswell Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Sunday 14 September 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 August 2025, which occurred via telephone.
On 23 June 2025, the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy at 11:59pm, Sunday 29 June 2025.
On 27 June 2025, Amy Lupton applied for a rehearing.
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 first hearing of this matter occurred on 18 June 2025. On 23 June 2025, I issued an order terminating the tenancy under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities Ms Lupton had breached her obligations to: a. Keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; 1 b. Seek the landlord’s consent before completing alterations to the premises; 2 and c. Not damage the premises. 3
I was also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Lupton had not remedied these breaches by attending to the matters listed in the landlord’s 14- day notice to remedy dated 6 March 2025. In this notice, the landlord required Ms Lupton to: a. Fix the flooring in the hallway, bathroom, toilet and laundry to the original standard. b. Remove the shower from the laundry. c. Fix holes in the walls of bedroom 2 and 3. d. Remove any and all rubbish from inside the property. e. Reinstate doors to the kitchen and hallway. f. Remove modifications made to bedroom 3 doors and walls. g. Replace all missing door handles. h. Remove the unconsented pool from the property. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(c). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B. i. Remove any and all rubbish from the section and tidy the backyard. j. Reinstate the grass in the backyard. k. Remove unconsented water features.
At the hearing on 18 June 2025, Ms Lupton claimed she had remedied all of these matters and had photographs to prove it. I allowed Ms Lupton until 5:00pm to submit any photographs. No photographs were received and I issued an order terminating the tenancy at 11:59pm, Sunday 29 June 2025.
On 27 June 2025, Ms Lupton applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she did not know what email address to send her photographs to. Ms Lupton also claimed she did not believe the landlord was serious in seeking termination of the tenancy and in retrospect, she had a lot more that she wanted to say.
The notice of hearing sent to the parties on 15 May 2025 states on the first page: If either party wishes to provide any further information to be considered at the hearing it should be emailed to the Tribunal immediately at the address below... Contact email address:remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz
Notwithstanding the fact that the email address to submit documents to was provided to Ms Lupton in the notice of hearing, I acknowledged that I may not have specifically provided her with the email address during the hearing. In these circumstances, I determined it fair to set the matter down for a consideration hearing and provide Ms Lupton with a further opportunity to submit her photographs.
The matter was first set down for a consideration hearing on 14 August 2025. In an order dated 30 June 2025, I directed Ms Lupton to file any photographs she had by 10 July 2025 and provided the email address for her to do this.
On 14 August 2025, Ms Lupton did not attend the hearing and no photographs were submitted. After the hearing, Ms Lupton contacted the Tribunal advising that she had missed a call and had tried to call back but was placed on hold.
In an order dated 15 August 2025, I scheduled another hearing for 19 August 2025 and directed Ms Lupton to file her photographs by 18 August 2025. Ms Lupton filed four photographs on the morning of the hearing on 19 August 2025. The photographs were insufficient to support the claim that Ms Lupton had remedied all of the matters noted in the landlord’s 14-day notice to remedy, but they did show parts of the premises were in a more clean and tidy state.
Ms Lupton gave evidence that she struggles with her mental health and finds it difficult to organise herself. In these circumstances, I determined it best to further adjourn the hearing to 27 August 2025 and direct the landlord to complete an inspection of the premises.
On 27 August 2025, the hearing proceeded with both parties in attendance. The landlord completed an inspection of the premises on 20 August 2025 and detailed evidence was before the Tribunal regarding the current state of the premises.
The inspection photographs prove the tenant has remedied the following matters noted in the landlord’s 14-day notice: a. Fix holed in the walls of bedroom 2 and 3. b. Remove any and all rubbish from inside the property. c. Remove unconsented pool from the property. d. Reinstate the grass in the backyard.
The inspection photographs prove the tenant has not remedied the following matters: a. Fix the flooring in the hallway, bathroom, toilet and laundry to the original standard. b. Remove the shower from the laundry. c. Reinstate doors to the kitchen and hallway. d. Remove modifications made to bedroom 3 doors and walls. e. Replace all missing door handles. f. Remove any and all rubbish from the section and tidy the backyard. g. Remove unconsented water features.
The tenant has reinstated doors in the kitchen and hallway, but the repair is inadequate. The doors are too short and the door handles cannot be used as a result.
Of great concern to the landlord is the state of the flooring in the hallway, bathroom, toilet and laundry. The tenant claims they changed the flooring due to a leak under the house causing rot to the flooring. No evidence of this was submitted. Even if it were, the appropriate course of action would have been for the tenant to alert the landlord to this and allow them to complete the repairs. Instead, the tenant has altered the floorboards without the consent of the landlord. The work has not been undertaken by a professional and the materials used do not comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
Also of great concern to the landlord is the fact that the shower has not been uninstalled from the laundry. The shower tray is still present and the laundry tub has been placed over the top. The plumbing around the area is leaking. The installation of a makeshift shower in the laundry area was completed without the landlord’s consent and the work was not done by a professional.
The kitchen cupboards have also been removed and shelving installed instead. Further, the tenant has modified the walls and doors in bedroom 3 without the landlord’s permission. The entire room and many other areas of the house have been painted by the tenant without the landlord’s permission. Whilst an effort has been to tidy the outside of the premises, there is still a significant amount of clutter.
A plumber accompanied the landlord to the inspection where it was newly discovered that additional plumber fixtures have been added underneath the house, which are causing septic leakage. The tenant gave evidence they fixed a leak under the house two years ago by themselves. Again, this work was not completed by a professional and does not comply with the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
Ample opportunity has been provided to the tenant since the date of the first hearing on 18 June 2025 to submit evidence supporting their claim that they have remedied the matters in the landlord’s 14-day notice. The inspection photographs taken on 20 August 2025 prove this is not the case. The premises are in a vastly different condition than they were at the beginning of the tenancy on 3 August 2015. The difference in appearance goes well beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord is understandably concerned for the premises and health and safety of anyone living in them.
Ample opportunity has also been given for the tenant to make further submissions. The tenant claims they completed the alterations because they believed the premises were going to be demolished. The tenant also claims they did not take the landlord seriously when the threat of termination was made. Further, the tenant claims they have dogs who have just given birth and the tenant needs the premises to look after them. None of these are any defence to the breaches committed by the tenant and they do not lead me to come to a different conclusion than I did in my original decision dated 23 June 2025.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265961 — Leaks at 46 Halswell Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265961 — Leaks at 46 Halswell Crescent, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

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