What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447788 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5447788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447788 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5447788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18 Dakota Way, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5447788 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must allow the tenant access to the tenancy on 5 and 6 June 2025 to allow the tenant to remove and recover his possessions. Should Mr Nicholls fail to allow this to occur by the dates stated, he is to have the tenant’s possessions professionally packed and delivered to a place of the tenants choosing by 19 June 2025 at Mr Nicholls cost.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. Mr Nicholls did not. I delayed thew start of the hearing, but no attempt to connect to the hearing was made. I decided to proceed in his absense.
The landlord applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. He also, unusually challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear his application on the basis that the tenancy was not residential. On 29 April 2026, I found that the tenancy was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that the tenancy had been correctly terminated by notice and that arrears of rent were owed. I also declined to consider material provided by the tenant relating to alleged healthy home breaches, in part as it was provided after the hearing had concluded.
Following my order the tenant paid the arrears. The landlord has taken possession of the tenancy but has prevented the tenant from removing his possessions. He says he was allowed only the clothes he was in and take one bag of possessions. Landlord has subsequently made threats to sell the tenant’s positions, and is seeking storage costs. Has also filed in the District Court for various matters including those which were considered in my order of 29 April 2026.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing, on the basis that his healthy homes claim was not heard. He has also applied to recover his possessions.
The landlord has provided written submissions which also seek a rehearing on the basis that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter. Although the landlord did not attend the hearing, I will briefly consider this issue. Rehearing application
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?

The tenant’s reason for seeking a rehearing is that his allegations that the tenancy was not healthy homes compliant were not considered. However, this was because there was no application made to the Tribunal for the alleged healthy homes breaches. My order did not consider this matter and therefore is open to the tenant to bring his own application against Mr Nicholls relating to the healthy homes allegations. The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for rehearing
Mr Nicholls reason for seeking a rehearing are that: a. the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter; and b. the Tribunal did not award the metered water charges sought.
Mr Nicholls jurisdiction protest was made, was considered, and was declined. It is a substantive protest and is not made out. With regard to the water charges these were also considered but were declined as there was no provision for them agreed between the parties, and this portion is application was declined. Mr Nicholls has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Work order
The tenant claims that the landlord has prevented him from removing his possessions from the tenancy. I am satisfied that the evidence makes out that this has occurred.
S78(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives the Tribunal the power to make an order that the party deliver any specific chattels to any other party. Landlord also has an obligation to allow tenant to recover the items once a tenancy has ended. This is not a situation where the tenant has abandoned the premises, rather the landlord trespassed with his goods still in place. I order that the landlord is to allow the tenant access to the premises on 5 and 6 June 2025 to remove and recover his possessions. Should Mr Nicholls fail to allow this to occur by the dates stated, he is to have the tenant’s possessions professionally packed and delivered to a place of the tenants choosing by 19 June 2025 at Mr Nicholls cost.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must allow the tenant access to the tenancy on 5 and 6 June 2025 to allow the tenant to remove and recover his possessions. Should Mr Nicholls fail to allow this to occur by the dates stated, he is to have the tenant’s possessions professionally packed and delivered to a place of the tenants choosing by 19 June 2025 at Mr Nicholls cost.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. Mr Nicholls did not. I delayed thew start of the hearing, but no attempt to connect to the hearing was made. I decided to proceed in his absense.
The landlord applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. He also, unusually challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear his application on the basis that the tenancy was not residential. On 29 April 2026, I found that the tenancy was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that the tenancy had been correctly terminated by notice and that arrears of rent were owed. I also declined to consider material provided by the tenant relating to alleged healthy home breaches, in part as it was provided after the hearing had concluded.
Following my order the tenant paid the arrears. The landlord has taken possession of the tenancy but has prevented the tenant from removing his possessions. He says he was allowed only the clothes he was in and take one bag of possessions. Landlord has subsequently made threats to sell the tenant’s positions, and is seeking storage costs. Has also filed in the District Court for various matters including those which were considered in my order of 29 April 2026.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing, on the basis that his healthy homes claim was not heard. He has also applied to recover his possessions.
The landlord has provided written submissions which also seek a rehearing on the basis that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter. Although the landlord did not attend the hearing, I will briefly consider this issue. Rehearing application
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?

The tenant’s reason for seeking a rehearing is that his allegations that the tenancy was not healthy homes compliant were not considered. However, this was because there was no application made to the Tribunal for the alleged healthy homes breaches. My order did not consider this matter and therefore is open to the tenant to bring his own application against Mr Nicholls relating to the healthy homes allegations. The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for rehearing
Mr Nicholls reason for seeking a rehearing are that: a. the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter; and b. the Tribunal did not award the metered water charges sought.
Mr Nicholls jurisdiction protest was made, was considered, and was declined. It is a substantive protest and is not made out. With regard to the water charges these were also considered but were declined as there was no provision for them agreed between the parties, and this portion is application was declined. Mr Nicholls has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Work order
The tenant claims that the landlord has prevented him from removing his possessions from the tenancy. I am satisfied that the evidence makes out that this has occurred.
S78(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives the Tribunal the power to make an order that the party deliver any specific chattels to any other party. Landlord also has an obligation to allow tenant to recover the items once a tenancy has ended. This is not a situation where the tenant has abandoned the premises, rather the landlord trespassed with his goods still in place. I order that the landlord is to allow the tenant access to the premises on 5 and 6 June 2025 to remove and recover his possessions. Should Mr Nicholls fail to allow this to occur by the dates stated, he is to have the tenant’s possessions professionally packed and delivered to a place of the tenants choosing by 19 June 2025 at Mr Nicholls cost.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447788 — Rent arrears at 18 Dakota Way, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447788 — Rent arrears at 18 Dakota Way, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions