What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5436719?

Amount: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436719?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13909119-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5436719?

Amount: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436719?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13909119-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436719. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Amount	$250.00		Amount

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay is lifted, and the order of the 21 May 2026 can be enforced immediately.
[The landlord/s] must also pay as costs (totalling $500.00) for nonattendance at the hearing pursuant to s102(2)(d) RTA a) $250 to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] ; and b) $250.00 to the Crown (Ministry of Justice)- payment is to be made by internet banking as follows: Payee: Ministry of Justice Account Number: 03-0049-0001063-25 Amount: $250 Particulars: [The landlord/s] costs Code: TT 5436719 Reference: RC35207

Reasons

On the 21 May 2026 I made an order against Ms Ram, who I found to be the landlord.
On the 25 May 2026 an application for rehearing was received from cpsproeprtynz@gmail.com purporting to be from Ms Ram.
The Tribunal queried who had filed the application, because the rehearing application said I, CPS Property Management, not [The landlord/s].
On the 26 May 2026 the Tribunal received confirmed via email from an address which was named customer service but was for an email at cpspropertynz@gmail.com. The email said: Rehearing application for [The landlord/s] attached as requested. The amended rehearing application was amended to record I [The landlord/s] trading as CPS Property Management..., the amended application was signed with this signature
Given that the signature did not appear to be that of Ms Ram’s, the Tribunal again sent another email seeking confirmation that the application was filed by Ms Ram. On the 28 May 2026 at 9.23 am the Tribunal sent the following email to the address for service on the rehearing application. We have received your amended rehearing consideration form. It is unclear who has filed this application. Ms Ram is the named party in the order and only she can apply for a rehearing of an order against her.

Can you please confirm that Ms Ram has filed this application?

Again, to reiterate CPS Property Management is a trading name ONLY, it is not a legal entity and no applications filed from a trading name will be entertained by the Tribunal.

12 mins later the Tribunal received the following message from the email address cpspropertynz@gmail.com Hello yes [The landlord/s] is submitting the application as advised.
In reliance of those emails - that it was the Respondent Ms Ram who had filed the application for rehearing; the Tribunal then ordered that the matter be set down for rehearing consideration hearing.
A stay of the 21 May 2026 order was granted to ensure that there was no prejudice to the Respondent whilst the rehearing was being considered.
The rehearing consideration hearing was set down for an in person hearing on the 16 July 2026 at 2pm. Mr and Mrs Ali attended.
Ms Ram did not attend. The Tribunal called the telephone number on the rehearing application form. Mr James Provost answered. He told me that Ms Ram stopped working for CPS in May.
I then queried why, if Ms Ram stopped working in May she had been able to file a rehearing application using cpspropertynz@gmail.com as an address for service on the 26 May, and why someone using that address had confirmed that the rehearing application had been filed by Ms Ram? At first Mr Provost told me that Ms Ram was not the landlord, but that CPS Property Management was. I explained that I had already made a determination that Ms Ram was the landlord. I said that the Tribunal had sought assurances on the 26 and 28 May that it was Ms Ram was filing the rehearing application and had been told it was. When I asked Mr Provost who sent the email dated 28 May 2026 from cpspropetynz@gmail.com he told me he did not know. When I asked who used that email account he refused to answer. I note that the rehearing application appears to have been signed by Mr Provost, not Ms Ram and that is why the Tribunal made these enquiries.
I am left with a rehearing application that, like so many other documents in claims relating to this tenancy that seem to have been written by a ghost.
As Ms Ram did not attend the hearing then the application for rehearing is dismissed.
When a party who files an application does not attend the hearing then costs may be awarded against them pursuant to section 102(d) RTA.
Usually awards under this section are modest and reflect the inconvenience to the parties and the waste of Tribunal resources. However, I consider that an award of $500, with $250.00 to be paid to the parties and $250 to be paid to the Crown (MOJ) 1 is justified because of the following: Reasons for costs to be awarded to the other party: a. Mr and Mrs Ali have had to take time out of the jobs and family life to attend the hearing. They tell me that they had to put their child in childcare to attend the hearing, despite him being unwell. b. Mr and Mrs Ali have had to wait to enforce their order of 21 May 2026. Reasons for costs to be awarded to be paid to the Crown. c. The Tribunal made numerous attempts to confirm with Ms Ram before scheduling this matter that the correct party had made the application and 1 See s102(3) RTA which allows the Tribunal to award costs to the Crown and costs to the other party. was assured that it had, and that Ms Ram wanted a rehearing application to be heard. d. Tribunal resources are scarce and should be used wisely. When time is allocated and not used there is an opportunity cost to other Tribunal participants and can lead to longer waits for other parties to have their matters heard. e. It is in the public interest that when applications are made and a party does not attend the hearing, that an award is made that recovers the actual cost to the party and the public taxpayer who funds the Tribunal. This acts as a deterrent to others. The amount awarded here is less that the actual amount expended for this hearing.
At the end of the hearing Mr and Mrs Ali expressed their continued frustration and stress regarding these proceedings and in particular people who say that they work for CPS Property Management not providing details to them and the Tribunal. They believe that Mr Provost gave false evidence at both the hearing with me on the 16 July and another Tribunal hearing on the 14 July. They say that there were inconsistencies with his evidence at both hearings. They believe that Mr Provost, Ms Ram and others that work in the business which trades as CPS Property Management are deliberately providing documents and holding out CPS Property Management as being a legal entity, so that tenants will have no recourse against anyone for breaches of the RTA.
The Tribunal can only deal with the applications it has in front of it. It cannot advocate or deal with claims that are not contained within the application. It cannot make any determination on criminal matters.
If Mr and Mrs Ali consider that someone in this matter has made a false statement, then they should bring that complaint to the Police. Under s111 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 it is a criminal offence for a person who has taken the promise to make any assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge knowing that assertion to be false and intending thereby to mislead the Tribunal.
If Mr and Mrs Ali believe that there is an ongoing issue with individuals trading as CPS Property Management, then that complaint is best addressed to the Compliance and Investigation team of Tenancy Services. (TCIT). TCIT has the power to investigate the matters which Mr and Mrs Ali are concerned about.
As the rehearing is dismissed, the stay is lifted, and the order of the 21 May can be enforced.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436719. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Amount	$250.00		Amount

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay is lifted, and the order of the 21 May 2026 can be enforced immediately.
[The landlord/s] must also pay as costs (totalling $500.00) for nonattendance at the hearing pursuant to s102(2)(d) RTA a) $250 to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] ; and b) $250.00 to the Crown (Ministry of Justice)- payment is to be made by internet banking as follows: Payee: Ministry of Justice Account Number: 03-0049-0001063-25 Amount: $250 Particulars: [The landlord/s] costs Code: TT 5436719 Reference: RC35207

Reasons

On the 21 May 2026 I made an order against Ms Ram, who I found to be the landlord.
On the 25 May 2026 an application for rehearing was received from cpsproeprtynz@gmail.com purporting to be from Ms Ram.
The Tribunal queried who had filed the application, because the rehearing application said I, CPS Property Management, not [The landlord/s].
On the 26 May 2026 the Tribunal received confirmed via email from an address which was named customer service but was for an email at cpspropertynz@gmail.com. The email said: Rehearing application for [The landlord/s] attached as requested. The amended rehearing application was amended to record I [The landlord/s] trading as CPS Property Management..., the amended application was signed with this signature
Given that the signature did not appear to be that of Ms Ram’s, the Tribunal again sent another email seeking confirmation that the application was filed by Ms Ram. On the 28 May 2026 at 9.23 am the Tribunal sent the following email to the address for service on the rehearing application. We have received your amended rehearing consideration form. It is unclear who has filed this application. Ms Ram is the named party in the order and only she can apply for a rehearing of an order against her.

Can you please confirm that Ms Ram has filed this application?

Again, to reiterate CPS Property Management is a trading name ONLY, it is not a legal entity and no applications filed from a trading name will be entertained by the Tribunal.

12 mins later the Tribunal received the following message from the email address cpspropertynz@gmail.com Hello yes [The landlord/s] is submitting the application as advised.
In reliance of those emails - that it was the Respondent Ms Ram who had filed the application for rehearing; the Tribunal then ordered that the matter be set down for rehearing consideration hearing.
A stay of the 21 May 2026 order was granted to ensure that there was no prejudice to the Respondent whilst the rehearing was being considered.
The rehearing consideration hearing was set down for an in person hearing on the 16 July 2026 at 2pm. Mr and Mrs Ali attended.
Ms Ram did not attend. The Tribunal called the telephone number on the rehearing application form. Mr James Provost answered. He told me that Ms Ram stopped working for CPS in May.
I then queried why, if Ms Ram stopped working in May she had been able to file a rehearing application using cpspropertynz@gmail.com as an address for service on the 26 May, and why someone using that address had confirmed that the rehearing application had been filed by Ms Ram? At first Mr Provost told me that Ms Ram was not the landlord, but that CPS Property Management was. I explained that I had already made a determination that Ms Ram was the landlord. I said that the Tribunal had sought assurances on the 26 and 28 May that it was Ms Ram was filing the rehearing application and had been told it was. When I asked Mr Provost who sent the email dated 28 May 2026 from cpspropetynz@gmail.com he told me he did not know. When I asked who used that email account he refused to answer. I note that the rehearing application appears to have been signed by Mr Provost, not Ms Ram and that is why the Tribunal made these enquiries.
I am left with a rehearing application that, like so many other documents in claims relating to this tenancy that seem to have been written by a ghost.
As Ms Ram did not attend the hearing then the application for rehearing is dismissed.
When a party who files an application does not attend the hearing then costs may be awarded against them pursuant to section 102(d) RTA.
Usually awards under this section are modest and reflect the inconvenience to the parties and the waste of Tribunal resources. However, I consider that an award of $500, with $250.00 to be paid to the parties and $250 to be paid to the Crown (MOJ) 1 is justified because of the following: Reasons for costs to be awarded to the other party: a. Mr and Mrs Ali have had to take time out of the jobs and family life to attend the hearing. They tell me that they had to put their child in childcare to attend the hearing, despite him being unwell. b. Mr and Mrs Ali have had to wait to enforce their order of 21 May 2026. Reasons for costs to be awarded to be paid to the Crown. c. The Tribunal made numerous attempts to confirm with Ms Ram before scheduling this matter that the correct party had made the application and 1 See s102(3) RTA which allows the Tribunal to award costs to the Crown and costs to the other party. was assured that it had, and that Ms Ram wanted a rehearing application to be heard. d. Tribunal resources are scarce and should be used wisely. When time is allocated and not used there is an opportunity cost to other Tribunal participants and can lead to longer waits for other parties to have their matters heard. e. It is in the public interest that when applications are made and a party does not attend the hearing, that an award is made that recovers the actual cost to the party and the public taxpayer who funds the Tribunal. This acts as a deterrent to others. The amount awarded here is less that the actual amount expended for this hearing.
At the end of the hearing Mr and Mrs Ali expressed their continued frustration and stress regarding these proceedings and in particular people who say that they work for CPS Property Management not providing details to them and the Tribunal. They believe that Mr Provost gave false evidence at both the hearing with me on the 16 July and another Tribunal hearing on the 14 July. They say that there were inconsistencies with his evidence at both hearings. They believe that Mr Provost, Ms Ram and others that work in the business which trades as CPS Property Management are deliberately providing documents and holding out CPS Property Management as being a legal entity, so that tenants will have no recourse against anyone for breaches of the RTA.
The Tribunal can only deal with the applications it has in front of it. It cannot advocate or deal with claims that are not contained within the application. It cannot make any determination on criminal matters.
If Mr and Mrs Ali consider that someone in this matter has made a false statement, then they should bring that complaint to the Police. Under s111 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 it is a criminal offence for a person who has taken the promise to make any assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge knowing that assertion to be false and intending thereby to mislead the Tribunal.
If Mr and Mrs Ali believe that there is an ongoing issue with individuals trading as CPS Property Management, then that complaint is best addressed to the Compliance and Investigation team of Tenancy Services. (TCIT). TCIT has the power to investigate the matters which Mr and Mrs Ali are concerned about.
As the rehearing is dismissed, the stay is lifted, and the order of the 21 May can be enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436719 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can you please confirm that Ms Ram has filed this application?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Can you please confirm that Ms Ram has filed this application?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions