What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361241 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5361241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361241?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360703-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361241 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5361241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361241?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360703-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361241 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The landlord only attended the hearing.

The tenant did not join the video link at the allotted time.

An order was made by the Tribunal dated 27 February 2026 for rent arrears and refund of the bond. The tenant appeared at the last hearing and submitted that the reason he did not pay rent was because the building was leaking. I noted in the order that the tenant had not made his own application.

The tenant has applied for a rehearing on the grounds he was not aware of the level of rent arrears. He has proof of the payments for the arrears and needs time to collect all the transaction summaries and then submit them to the tribunal. He alleges that he was not given a healthy home as required to Healthy Home standards. He has still not filed his own application that I have been made aware of.

In information supplied to the Tribunal after the hearing, the tenant submits a list of additional cash payments he considers he has made and advises: “Additional information attached • Emails sent to Main Realty to Fix/ repair water leak and power points • Trespass notice issued directly only to my ex-partner, since I had left the property and gave verbal update to Main Realty that I have moved back to my parents and my ex-partner Yogita will continue to leave at above property • Attaching emails sent to Main Reality requesting to fix water league and reply with no remedy but instead was issued notice to vacate”

The noted attachments were not supplied.

It is clear from this summary that the tenant appears to have left the property, leaving his partner to continue to reside there for some time. The tenant however remained liable to the landlord for all rent payments, regardless of whether they were paid by his ex-partner.

The landlord submits that all payments made by the tenant were recorded and the rent summary including some cash payments. The landlord claims there has never been any evidence of any leaks for the property. The landlord claims that the tenant is just making up excuses and that he wrongly sub-letted the premises during the tenancy. Analysis

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?

I have read and taken into account the tenant’s submissions, even though he did not appear.

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a. He has failed to appear, b. He has not filed his own application for compensation arising out of defects with the property, c. I accept the evidence of the landlord that the rent summary is an accurate record of payments made. d. I do not consider anything went wrong with the hearing. It seems that the tenant was unhappy with the outcome; but that is not grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord only attended the hearing.
The tenant did not join the video link at the allotted time.
An order was made by the Tribunal dated 27 February 2026 for rent arrears and refund of the bond. The tenant appeared at the last hearing and submitted that the reason he did not pay rent was because the building was leaking. I noted in the order that the tenant had not made his own application.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing on the grounds he was not aware of the level of rent arrears. He has proof of the payments for the arrears and needs time to collect all the transaction summaries and then submit them to the tribunal. He alleges that he was not given a healthy home as required to Healthy Home standards. He has still not filed his own application that I have been made aware of.
In information supplied to the Tribunal after the hearing, the tenant submits a list of additional cash payments he considers he has made and advises: “Additional information attached • Emails sent to Main Realty to Fix/ repair water leak and power points • Trespass notice issued directly only to my ex-partner, since I had left the property and gave verbal update to Main Realty that I have moved back to my parents and my ex-partner Yogita will continue to leave at above property • Attaching emails sent to Main Reality requesting to fix water league and reply with no remedy but instead was issued notice to vacate”
The noted attachments were not supplied.
It is clear from this summary that the tenant appears to have left the property, leaving his partner to continue to reside there for some time. The tenant however remained liable to the landlord for all rent payments, regardless of whether they were paid by his ex-partner.
The landlord submits that all payments made by the tenant were recorded and the rent summary including some cash payments. The landlord claims there has never been any evidence of any leaks for the property. The landlord claims that the tenant is just making up excuses and that he wrongly sub-letted the premises during the tenancy. Analysis
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?

I have read and taken into account the tenant’s submissions, even though he did not appear.
For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a. He has failed to appear, b. He has not filed his own application for compensation arising out of defects with the property, c. I accept the evidence of the landlord that the rent summary is an accurate record of payments made. d. I do not consider anything went wrong with the hearing. It seems that the tenant was unhappy with the outcome; but that is not grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361241 — Rent arrears at 150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361241 — Rent arrears at 150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.