Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5358602 — Tenancy dispute at 10A Dreadon Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Decided 30 Jun 2026 · Published 30 Jun 2026 · Application 5358602
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons
- The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend.
- On 16 March 2026, the Tribunal heard and determined the applicants' claims arising from the tenancy. The applicants were partially successful and subsequently applied for a rehearing.
- The applicants rely on several grounds in support of their application. They submit that an additional water invoice, which they say was provided before the filing deadline, was not considered by the Tribunal. They also challenge the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence relating to the insurance assessor's report, the carpet replacement claim, and the condition of the bathroom. More generally, they disagree with the inferences drawn by the Tribunal from the evidence and say they have been placed in an unfair position as a result of the actions of their property manager.
- Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may order a rehearing where "a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur."
- Generally, the party applying for a rehearing must establish that something went wrong with the Tribunal's procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or 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, provided that evidence 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, that is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Likewise, a rehearing will not be granted simply because a party is dissatisfied with the decision or wishes to have a second opportunity to present their case.
- Of the issues raised by the applicant as a basis for rehearing, only the alleged failure to consider the additional water invoice is capable of engaging the rehearing jurisdiction under s 105, as it raises a potential issue concerning the Tribunal's procedure. The remaining grounds amount to disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and the conclusions reached.
- I have reviewed the additional water invoice. It is a standalone invoice relating to a single billing period, namely 31 July to 29 August.
- Even accepting that the invoice ought to have been before the Tribunal when the original decision was made, I am satisfied that its consideration could not have altered the outcome for the following reasons: a) the landlord bears the burden of proving its claim and is required to maintain adequate records. In the case of a claim for water charges, that would ordinarily include records identifying the billing periods, the invoices received, the payments made, and the basis upon which the amounts claimed are attributable to the tenants. This tenancy lasted approximately 16 months. No such records or summary were provided. Random bills in these circumstances cannot establish the balance owing. b) s 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenants may only be required to pay water charges that are exclusively attributable to their use. The additional invoice relates to a billing period during which the tenancy ended. There is no evidence that a final meter reading was taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. Accordingly, there is no evidential basis upon which the water usage reflected in that invoice can be accurately attributed to the tenants. While I accept that some portion of the usage was likely incurred during the tenancy, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to establish what that portion was.
- Accordingly, the landlord failed to substantiate its claim. Consideration of the additional invoice would not have remedied those evidential deficiencies and could not have affected the outcome of the application.
- In any event, the issue concerns the apportionment of a single water invoice for $129.59 within the context of an overall claim of $9,426.68. In those circumstances, and given the evidential deficiencies identified above, the omission of the invoice from the Tribunal's consideration cannot properly be characterised as giving rise to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
- The balance of the applicants' submissions amount to disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and the findings reached. They also express dissatisfaction with the conduct of their property manager and the position in which they consider they have been placed, those matters do not demonstrate any procedural unfairness in the hearing before the Tribunal.
- It remained for the applicants to substantiate their claims and prove them on the balance of probabilities. To the extent they contend that the Tribunal erred in its factual findings or application of the law, the appropriate course was to appeal the decision and the District Court has consistently held, a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal.
- I am not satisfied that the applicants have established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, may have occurred, or is likely to occur. The application for a rehearing is therefore dismissed.