What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297580 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5297580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297580?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12750605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297580 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details in

How much money was awarded in case 5297580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297580?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12750605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297580 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details in accordance with the previous order.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 26 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the application for termination and setting aside the notice of rent increase dated 8 November 2004.
On 3 October 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that (a) the Tribunal set aside the notice of rent increase despite accepting that it was posted to the tenancy address in accordance with section 136(2)(a)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and (b) the Tribunal failed to take into account section 16 RTA which requires the tenant to notify the landlord of any change to their address for service including their contact email address.
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.
The tenant reiterated her previous submissions that she did not get the notices for rent increase. She says that if a rehearing is granted and the matter starts again before another Adjudicator, then she is ok with that.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. (a) The Tribunal made a finding of fact that the tenant did not receive the notice of rent increase for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 of the order, despite the notice being posted to the tenancy address. The landlord says this is an error because the notice was posted in accordance with section 136 RTA. In reality, the landlord is challenging a finding of fact and as such, this does not establish sufficient grounds for rehearing. (b) The landlord emailed the notice of rent increase to the last known email address for the tenant. As noted in the order, this does not constitute an address for service as it is not noted on the tenancy agreement. I agree with the landlord that tenants must keep landlords informed of any change to their contact details or address for service in accordance with section 16 RTA. However, a notice of rent increase must be served in accordance with section 136 RTA. Section 136(1)(d) provides that the notice may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service [my emphasis]. The landlord says the tenant had previously used the email address to communicate with them thus establishing it as an address for service. I disagree. The tenant contacted the landlord by email in April 2023 and February 2024 to ask for repairs. The tenant was asked to provide her full name, contact number and property address, which she did. The tenant was not asked to confirm or verify that the email she used to request a repair could then be used or relied upon as her address for service. (c) In any event, even if relevant law was not applied or was applied incorrectly by the Tribunal, this does not establish sufficient grounds for rehearing.
I do not find any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. There has been no procedural error or impropriety.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 26 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the application for termination and setting aside the notice of rent increase dated 8 November 2004.

On 3 October 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that (a) the Tribunal set aside the notice of rent increase despite accepting that it was posted to the tenancy address in accordance with section 136(2)(a)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and (b) the Tribunal failed to take into account section 16 RTA which requires the tenant to notify the landlord of any change to their address for service including their contact email address.

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.

The tenant reiterated her previous submissions that she did not get the notices for rent increase. She says that if a rehearing is granted and the matter starts again before another Adjudicator, then she is ok with that.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. (a) The Tribunal made a finding of fact that the tenant did not receive the notice of rent increase for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 of the order, despite the notice being posted to the tenancy address. The landlord says this is an error because the notice was posted in accordance with section 136 RTA. In reality, the landlord is challenging a finding of fact and as such, this does not establish sufficient grounds for rehearing. (b) The landlord emailed the notice of rent increase to the last known email address for the tenant. As noted in the order, this does not constitute an address for service as it is not noted on the tenancy agreement. I agree with the landlord that tenants must keep landlords informed of any change to their contact details or address for service in accordance with section 16 RTA. However, a notice of rent increase must be served in accordance with section 136 RTA. Section 136(1)(d) provides that the notice may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service [my emphasis]. The landlord says the tenant had previously used the email address to communicate with them thus establishing it as an address for service. I disagree. The tenant contacted the landlord by email in April 2023 and February 2024 to ask for repairs. The tenant was asked to provide her full name, contact number and property address, which she did. The tenant was not asked to confirm or verify that the email she used to request a repair could then be used or relied upon as her address for service. (c) In any event, even if relevant law was not applied or was applied incorrectly by the Tribunal, this does not establish sufficient grounds for rehearing.

I do not find any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. There has been no procedural error or impropriety.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297580 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297580 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions