What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415015 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5415015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415015?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13503560-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415015 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5415015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415015?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13503560-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415015 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 26 February 2026, the Tribunal made an order for the Tenant to pay the Landlord rent arrears and compensation.
On 27 February 2026, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing because he had no phone at the time it was sent. He therefore lost access to the email address where correspondence was being sent. There was no notice sent to his mobile phone number and he only found out on 26 February 2026 that a hearing had taken place after receiving the Tribunal Order. He is currently on the Job Seekers benefit and he already has a court order for his current fines. He signed the bond refund form to pay for his rent arrears.
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?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Faumui submits that he lost his mobile phone and was therefore unable to access his emails in January 2026, notifying him of the hearing date. He says he only became aware on 26 February 2026, after the hearing had taken place.
The Tribunal records indicate the notice of hearing was sent to Mr Faumui’s email address on 9 January 2026.
The Tribunal also sent reminder notifications on 19 and 23 February 2026 by both email and text message, advising Mr Faumui of the hearing scheduled for 26 February 2026.
The Landlord produced screenshot evidence showing that Mr Faumui accessed email correspondence from the Landlord on multiple occasions during the relevant period, namely on 17, 21, 24, 26, and 30 January 2026, and on 2 and 19 February 2026. This evidence is inconsistent with Mr Faumui’s assertion that he was unable to access his emails in January 2026 but also shows, he accessed his emails on 19 February 2026 when the Tribunal sent the reminder message of the upcoming hearing. I also accept the Landlord’s evidence that the Tenant was very good at maintaining regular communication during the tenancy.
When invited during the hearing to view the Landlord’s screenshot evidence, Mr Faumui declined to do so. In the circumstances, this refusal to look at conflicting evidence which undermines position, weakened his argument. If he was firm that he was unable to access his emails during January 2026, why would he not want to look at contrary evidence.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Faumui was aware of the hearing. The notice was sent well in advance, reminder communications were issued shortly before the hearing, and the Tenant was actively accessing his email account during the relevant period. The fact that he filed an application for a rehearing on 27 February 2026, the day after the hearing, further supports this conclusion that he regularly checked his email and text message correspondence.
The application for a rehearing is declined.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 26 February 2026, the Tribunal made an order for the Tenant to pay the Landlord rent arrears and compensation.
On 27 February 2026, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing because he had no phone at the time it was sent. He therefore lost access to the email address where correspondence was being sent. There was no notice sent to his mobile phone number and he only found out on 26 February 2026 that a hearing had taken place after receiving the Tribunal Order. He is currently on the Job Seekers benefit and he already has a court order for his current fines. He signed the bond refund form to pay for his rent arrears.
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?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr Faumui submits that he lost his mobile phone and was therefore unable to access his emails in January 2026, notifying him of the hearing date. He says he only became aware on 26 February 2026, after the hearing had taken place.
The Tribunal records indicate the notice of hearing was sent to Mr Faumui’s email address on 9 January 2026.
The Tribunal also sent reminder notifications on 19 and 23 February 2026 by both email and text message, advising Mr Faumui of the hearing scheduled for 26 February 2026.
The Landlord produced screenshot evidence showing that Mr Faumui accessed email correspondence from the Landlord on multiple occasions during the relevant period, namely on 17, 21, 24, 26, and 30 January 2026, and on 2 and 19 February 2026. This evidence is inconsistent with Mr Faumui’s assertion that he was unable to access his emails in January 2026 but also shows, he accessed his emails on 19 February 2026 when the Tribunal sent the reminder message of the upcoming hearing. I also accept the Landlord’s evidence that the Tenant was very good at maintaining regular communication during the tenancy.
When invited during the hearing to view the Landlord’s screenshot evidence, Mr Faumui declined to do so. In the circumstances, this refusal to look at conflicting evidence which undermines position, weakened his argument. If he was firm that he was unable to access his emails during January 2026, why would he not want to look at contrary evidence.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Faumui was aware of the hearing. The notice was sent well in advance, reminder communications were issued shortly before the hearing, and the Tenant was actively accessing his email account during the relevant period. The fact that he filed an application for a rehearing on 27 February 2026, the day after the hearing, further supports this conclusion that he regularly checked his email and text message correspondence.
The application for a rehearing is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415015 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415015 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010

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.