What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438694 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5438694?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13872288-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438694 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5438694?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13872288-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Tokarewa Close, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438694 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal on 11 May 2026 may be enforced by the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference.
On 11 May 2026 the Tribunal issued an order determining the applications filed by the tenant and the landlord. The landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates, and compensation for repairs to a home security alarm. A total of $614.72 was awarded to the landlord and this was paid from the bond. The balance of the bond of $2,085.28 was awarded to the tenant.
On 15 May 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred due to procedural misconduct, demonstrable bias, and improper evaluation of evidence. He wrote that the rent calculation was incorrect, he had been contractually misled, there was a requirement for agent accountability, and there had been barriers for immigrants, since this was his first tenancy in New Zealand, and he should not be penalised for a common sense interpretation of a 12 month term. He further wrote there was inconsistent evidence and procedural failures regarding the water charges. Furthermore, the alarm repair costs were unauthorised.
The tenant also claimed the hearing was not conducted with the required impartiality, due to favouritism and predetermination. He felt the adjudicator had shown bias by waiting for the landlord, who arrived late. Predetermination was demonstrated by the adjudicator’s questions to the landlord regarding their claim. The hearing
At the hearing, the tenant explained his understanding of standard lease arrangements and referred to messaging from the landlord that the agreement was for 12 months, which therefore equated to 365 days. He no longer disputed the water charges. In terms of the repair costs for the alarm, he noted he did not approve the additional cost being sought by the landlord. As the landlord did not have his consent, this charge was unfair.
In terms of the conduct of the hearing, the tenant stated that the hearing notice was clear as to the time, and the landlord arrived 10 minutes late. The hearing ought to have started on time. He had arrived on time. Furthermore, the adjudicator had asked the landlord whether there were any costs that the landlord wished to claim, although the Tribunal would be aware that people cannot add additional costs to their claim after it has been submitted.
In response, the landlord’s representative referred to the terms of the tenancy agreement, which were clear, noting that if the tenant had any issue with the dates, this should have been raised at the time, and she would have been happy to change it. She further explained the reason for the costs noted in the invoice for repair of the alarm.
In reply, the tenant stated that he had specifically asked the landlord what the term of the agreement was, as noted in the message. Furthermore, his issue was with the non-approved costs that he was being asked to pay. A choice had been taken away from him as a result. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the tenant’s application, the evidence and submissions at the hearing, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
I am not persuaded that the tenant has demonstrated any procedural flaws or bias in this case. The tenant objected to the Tribunal waiting 10 minutes for the landlord’s representative to arrive at the hearing. Accepting that the hearing notice advises parties of the start time of the hearing, waiting for one party to arrive does not demonstrate a bias or any procedural flaws. Where only one party has arrived, it is my usual practice to wait up to 10 minutes, to give the other party the chance to appear. As explained, if the tenant had been running late, I would have waited up to 10 minutes, to give him the opportunity to attend the hearing.
The fact that the scope of the landlord’s claims was clarified, near the end of the hearing, does not demonstrate predetermination. It is unfortunate that the tenant has perceived clarification of claims to be an invitation for the landlord to add further claims to their application. That was certainly not the intention. I do not find this shows any predetermination.
Often parties confuse an unfavourable decision with bias. The two are not connected. The Tribunal had no reasons to be biased against the tenant, and took steps to ensure it understood the tenant’s position when determining the applications.
The tenant has explained why he does not agree with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in terms of the rent calculation and the alarm repair costs. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the tenant’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted. This ultimately points to unhappiness with the decision, which does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
Therefore, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
As a result of the rehearing application being dismissed, the stay of proceedings has now lapsed, and the original order may be enforced by the landlord.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal on 11 May 2026 may be enforced by the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference.
On 11 May 2026 the Tribunal issued an order determining the applications filed by the tenant and the landlord. The landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates, and compensation for repairs to a home security alarm. A total of $614.72 was awarded to the landlord and this was paid from the bond. The balance of the bond of $2,085.28 was awarded to the tenant.
On 15 May 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred due to procedural misconduct, demonstrable bias, and improper evaluation of evidence. He wrote that the rent calculation was incorrect, he had been contractually misled, there was a requirement for agent accountability, and there had been barriers for immigrants, since this was his first tenancy in New Zealand, and he should not be penalised for a common sense interpretation of a 12 month term. He further wrote there was inconsistent evidence and procedural failures regarding the water charges. Furthermore, the alarm repair costs were unauthorised.
The tenant also claimed the hearing was not conducted with the required impartiality, due to favouritism and predetermination. He felt the adjudicator had shown bias by waiting for the landlord, who arrived late. Predetermination was demonstrated by the adjudicator’s questions to the landlord regarding their claim. The hearing
At the hearing, the tenant explained his understanding of standard lease arrangements and referred to messaging from the landlord that the agreement was for 12 months, which therefore equated to 365 days. He no longer disputed the water charges. In terms of the repair costs for the alarm, he noted he did not approve the additional cost being sought by the landlord. As the landlord did not have his consent, this charge was unfair.
In terms of the conduct of the hearing, the tenant stated that the hearing notice was clear as to the time, and the landlord arrived 10 minutes late. The hearing ought to have started on time. He had arrived on time. Furthermore, the adjudicator had asked the landlord whether there were any costs that the landlord wished to claim, although the Tribunal would be aware that people cannot add additional costs to their claim after it has been submitted.
In response, the landlord’s representative referred to the terms of the tenancy agreement, which were clear, noting that if the tenant had any issue with the dates, this should have been raised at the time, and she would have been happy to change it. She further explained the reason for the costs noted in the invoice for repair of the alarm.
In reply, the tenant stated that he had specifically asked the landlord what the term of the agreement was, as noted in the message. Furthermore, his issue was with the non-approved costs that he was being asked to pay. A choice had been taken away from him as a result. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the tenant’s application, the evidence and submissions at the hearing, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
I am not persuaded that the tenant has demonstrated any procedural flaws or bias in this case. The tenant objected to the Tribunal waiting 10 minutes for the landlord’s representative to arrive at the hearing. Accepting that the hearing notice advises parties of the start time of the hearing, waiting for one party to arrive does not demonstrate a bias or any procedural flaws. Where only one party has arrived, it is my usual practice to wait up to 10 minutes, to give the other party the chance to appear. As explained, if the tenant had been running late, I would have waited up to 10 minutes, to give him the opportunity to attend the hearing.
The fact that the scope of the landlord’s claims was clarified, near the end of the hearing, does not demonstrate predetermination. It is unfortunate that the tenant has perceived clarification of claims to be an invitation for the landlord to add further claims to their application. That was certainly not the intention. I do not find this shows any predetermination.
Often parties confuse an unfavourable decision with bias. The two are not connected. The Tribunal had no reasons to be biased against the tenant, and took steps to ensure it understood the tenant’s position when determining the applications.
The tenant has explained why he does not agree with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in terms of the rent calculation and the alarm repair costs. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the tenant’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted. This ultimately points to unhappiness with the decision, which does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
Therefore, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
As a result of the rehearing application being dismissed, the stay of proceedings has now lapsed, and the original order may be enforced by the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438694 — Rent arrears at 27 Tokarewa Close, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438694 — Rent arrears at 27 Tokarewa Close, Mount Wellington, Auckland

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions