What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541998 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5541998?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541998?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14173940-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541998 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5541998?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541998?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14173940-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5541998 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The purpose of this hearing was to consider the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for a rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure; for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or 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 and which 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 merely because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give that party a second opportunity to present their case.
At today’s hearing, I asked the landlord to identify the grounds on which the rehearing application was made. The landlord relied on an affidavit from a person described as the landlord’s in-house property maintenance employee. The content of the affidavit was provided as an unsworn statement at the original hearing so the tribunal understood the landlords position in relation the points made. The employee stated that he had visited the property and carried out maintenance during the tenancy. He also stated that he had encountered the tenant’s former partner at Hunters Corner, the local shopping centre, and that she had told him that the tenant had fabricated the evidence concerning the condition of the property.
At the previous hearing, the tenant explained that he had experienced a contentious separation from his former partner and that they were no longer on speaking terms. In those circumstances, the Tribunal did not consider an allegation attributed to the former partner, and conveyed through a third party, to be sufficiently reliable to displace the other evidence before it. In particular, there was independent evidence concerning leaking and the condition of the property. The substance of the allegation now relied upon therefore does not provide a new basis for reconsidering the Tribunal’s findings.
In addition to that statement, the landlord has provided an undated Healthy Homes inspection report from someone called Rozy Gounder, The property manager is Shalendra Gounder and the property owner is the Gounder family trust. Regina Gounder tells me that Rozy Gounder is an unknown third party who just happens to share the surname. The landlord has also provided a letter from 2024 which confirms that leaks were present at the property. The letter is somewhat difficult to follow. It appears to have been written by Shalendra, in his capacity with Main Realty, to the trustees of the entity owning the property, while he is himself also a trustee. The letter records the presence of a leak, non- compliance with the applicable standards, and other maintenance issues.
The landlord’s presentation of the evidence has made the respective roles and capacities of those involved difficult to distinguish. In particular, the landlord refers to herself in different capacities, including as owner and property manager, and also refers to her brother. Some of the conversations relied upon appear to have occurred between the same individuals acting in different capacities. While I can understand, in broad terms, the circumstances being described, the way in which the evidence has been presented makes me considerably skeptical of the evidence.
In any case, the point the landlord makes at today’s hearing appears to be that the existence of a Healthy Homes report, apparently from 2024; an affidavit from a person responsible for property maintenance, who also says that he happened to encounter the tenant’s former partner and was told by her that the tenant was actively fabricating evidence; and a letter from the property manager to himself in his capacity as trustee and owner identifying defects with the property, demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in meeting its maintenance obligations and cast doubt on the tenant’s evidence.
The landlord asks me to infer from this material that the specific allegations made by the tenant, and the Tribunal’s findings in relation to them, should be displaced. I do not find that submission convincing. The existence of general arrangements for maintenance, or evidence that some maintenance issues were identified or addressed, does not establish that the particular defects found by the Tribunal did not exist. Nor does the third-party account of what the tenant’s former partner is said to have stated provide a sufficient basis to revisit those findings, particularly given the other evidence before the Tribunal concerning the leaks and condition of the property.
In any event, none of the evidence provided establishes that there was any procedural error on the part of the Tribunal. Nor has the landlord identified any material evidence that was not reasonably available and could not reasonably have been provided at the previous hearing. A rehearing is not an opportunity to re-present or relitigate the case.
I understand the landlord’s position to be that the tenant fabricated the maintenance issues in an attempt to avoid liability for rent arrears. That allegation does not, without more, establish a ground for rehearing under s 105(1). Further, the material now relied upon does not displace the evidence concerning the leaks and condition of the property that was before the Tribunal when the substantive decision was made. To the extent that the Tribunal was required to determine those factual issues, they were addressed in the order already made.
I am therefore not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred, or is likely to occur.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The previous orders remain in force.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The purpose of this hearing was to consider the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for a rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure; for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or 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 and which 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 merely because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give that party a second opportunity to present their case.
At today’s hearing, I asked the landlord to identify the grounds on which the rehearing application was made. The landlord relied on an affidavit from a person described as the landlord’s in-house property maintenance employee. The content of the affidavit was provided as an unsworn statement at the original hearing so the tribunal understood the landlords position in relation the points made. The employee stated that he had visited the property and carried out maintenance during the tenancy. He also stated that he had encountered the tenant’s former partner at Hunters Corner, the local shopping centre, and that she had told him that the tenant had fabricated the evidence concerning the condition of the property.
At the previous hearing, the tenant explained that he had experienced a contentious separation from his former partner and that they were no longer on speaking terms. In those circumstances, the Tribunal did not consider an allegation attributed to the former partner, and conveyed through a third party, to be sufficiently reliable to displace the other evidence before it. In particular, there was independent evidence concerning leaking and the condition of the property. The substance of the allegation now relied upon therefore does not provide a new basis for reconsidering the Tribunal’s findings.
In addition to that statement, the landlord has provided an undated Healthy Homes inspection report from someone called Rozy Gounder, The property manager is Shalendra Gounder and the property owner is the Gounder family trust. Regina Gounder tells me that Rozy Gounder is an unknown third party who just happens to share the surname. The landlord has also provided a letter from 2024 which confirms that leaks were present at the property. The letter is somewhat difficult to follow. It appears to have been written by Shalendra, in his capacity with Main Realty, to the trustees of the entity owning the property, while he is himself also a trustee. The letter records the presence of a leak, non- compliance with the applicable standards, and other maintenance issues.
The landlord’s presentation of the evidence has made the respective roles and capacities of those involved difficult to distinguish. In particular, the landlord refers to herself in different capacities, including as owner and property manager, and also refers to her brother. Some of the conversations relied upon appear to have occurred between the same individuals acting in different capacities. While I can understand, in broad terms, the circumstances being described, the way in which the evidence has been presented makes me considerably skeptical of the evidence.
In any case, the point the landlord makes at today’s hearing appears to be that the existence of a Healthy Homes report, apparently from 2024; an affidavit from a person responsible for property maintenance, who also says that he happened to encounter the tenant’s former partner and was told by her that the tenant was actively fabricating evidence; and a letter from the property manager to himself in his capacity as trustee and owner identifying defects with the property, demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in meeting its maintenance obligations and cast doubt on the tenant’s evidence.
The landlord asks me to infer from this material that the specific allegations made by the tenant, and the Tribunal’s findings in relation to them, should be displaced. I do not find that submission convincing. The existence of general arrangements for maintenance, or evidence that some maintenance issues were identified or addressed, does not establish that the particular defects found by the Tribunal did not exist. Nor does the third-party account of what the tenant’s former partner is said to have stated provide a sufficient basis to revisit those findings, particularly given the other evidence before the Tribunal concerning the leaks and condition of the property.
In any event, none of the evidence provided establishes that there was any procedural error on the part of the Tribunal. Nor has the landlord identified any material evidence that was not reasonably available and could not reasonably have been provided at the previous hearing. A rehearing is not an opportunity to re-present or relitigate the case.
I understand the landlord’s position to be that the tenant fabricated the maintenance issues in an attempt to avoid liability for rent arrears. That allegation does not, without more, establish a ground for rehearing under s 105(1). Further, the material now relied upon does not displace the evidence concerning the leaks and condition of the property that was before the Tribunal when the substantive decision was made. To the extent that the Tribunal was required to determine those factual issues, they were addressed in the order already made.
I am therefore not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred, or is likely to occur.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The previous orders remain in force.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541998 — Rent arrears at 150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541998 — Rent arrears at 150B Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.