How much money was awarded in case 5021836?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021836?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021836?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11275495-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5021836?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021836?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021836?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11275495-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 St Andrews Drive, Pauanui, Pauanui 3579 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021836 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5021836?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the tenancy of Stacey Brew at 35

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021836 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 January 2025	$4,500.00	Rent arrears to 22 January 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,027.00

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the tenancy of Stacey Brew at 35 St Andrews Drive, Pauanui, Pananui 3579 is terminated. The original order of 16 October 2004 is varied so that possession is now granted to Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn, at 5.00pm on Wednesday 22 January 2025.

Stacey Brew must pay Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn $3,027.00 immediately, as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6359649-018) to Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

On 16 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order terminating this tenancy and granted possession to the landlord on 23 October 2024. The tenant was also ordered to pay the filing fee.

The Tribunal found the tenant had breached their obligations by having a dog on the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement and property covenant, and by failing to pay rent as and when it falls due.

On 18 October 2024, Stacey Brew applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was adversely affected by the sudden death of a close friend and unable to attend the hearing, and that she has not breached her tenancy agreement.

On 21 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order setting the rehearing application down for a hearing and granting a stay of proceedings on the condition that the weekly rent continued to be paid.

On 4 December 2024, the landlord filed a further application for termination of this tenancy (5096830) and rent arrears.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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. 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.

For the following reasons Stacey Bew has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

While I accept that Ms Brew was distressed by the recent bereavement of a close friend on 12 October, this did not prevent her from attending the hearing by phone on 16 October. The funeral took place on 19 October which was 3 days after the hearing date.

Ms Brew has breached the stay of proceedings imposed by the order of 21 October 2024 as she has failed to pay the weekly rent. Rent was last paid on 31 December 2024.

In these circumstances, the application for rehearing fails and the tenancy must be terminated. I have varied the original order to give Ms Brew an opportunity to make alternative arrangements and leave the premises at the ordered time and date. Application 5096830 – termination and rent arrears

As the tenancy has already terminated, it is not necessary to make a further order. For the record, where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Ms Brew says that rent is not in arrears as the landlord agreed to apply the bond to the arrears and waive one week.

I have considered all of the evidence from both parties, including the affidavit of Matthew Rickard filed by the tenant. On balance, I accept the evidence of the landlord that they only agreed to apply the bond to rent arrears and waive one week on the condition that Ms Brew was moving out on the previously ordered date of 23 October 2024. This did not happen due to the rehearing application and stay of proceedings, so the bond remained with the bond centre and the agreement lapsed.

The amount of rent due and owing has been proven by the rent summary provided.

Rent is at least 21 days in arrears today therefore the tenancy would have been terminated in any event making the rehearing moot.

As the landlord has succeeded with their claim for rent arrears, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021836 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 January 2025	$4,500.00	Rent arrears to 22 January 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,027.00

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the tenancy of Stacey Brew at 35 St Andrews Drive, Pauanui, Pananui 3579 is terminated. The original order of 16 October 2004 is varied so that possession is now granted to Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn, at 5.00pm on Wednesday 22 January 2025.
Stacey Brew must pay Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn $3,027.00 immediately, as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6359649-018) to Mark Newman and Rachel Thorburn immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
On 16 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order terminating this tenancy and granted possession to the landlord on 23 October 2024. The tenant was also ordered to pay the filing fee.
The Tribunal found the tenant had breached their obligations by having a dog on the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement and property covenant, and by failing to pay rent as and when it falls due.
On 18 October 2024, Stacey Brew applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was adversely affected by the sudden death of a close friend and unable to attend the hearing, and that she has not breached her tenancy agreement.
On 21 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order setting the rehearing application down for a hearing and granting a stay of proceedings on the condition that the weekly rent continued to be paid.
On 4 December 2024, the landlord filed a further application for termination of this tenancy (5096830) and rent arrears.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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. 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.
For the following reasons Stacey Bew has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
While I accept that Ms Brew was distressed by the recent bereavement of a close friend on 12 October, this did not prevent her from attending the hearing by phone on 16 October. The funeral took place on 19 October which was 3 days after the hearing date.
Ms Brew has breached the stay of proceedings imposed by the order of 21 October 2024 as she has failed to pay the weekly rent. Rent was last paid on 31 December 2024.
In these circumstances, the application for rehearing fails and the tenancy must be terminated. I have varied the original order to give Ms Brew an opportunity to make alternative arrangements and leave the premises at the ordered time and date. Application 5096830 – termination and rent arrears
As the tenancy has already terminated, it is not necessary to make a further order. For the record, where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Brew says that rent is not in arrears as the landlord agreed to apply the bond to the arrears and waive one week.
I have considered all of the evidence from both parties, including the affidavit of Matthew Rickard filed by the tenant. On balance, I accept the evidence of the landlord that they only agreed to apply the bond to rent arrears and waive one week on the condition that Ms Brew was moving out on the previously ordered date of 23 October 2024. This did not happen due to the rehearing application and stay of proceedings, so the bond remained with the bond centre and the agreement lapsed.
The amount of rent due and owing has been proven by the rent summary provided.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears today therefore the tenancy would have been terminated in any event making the rehearing moot.
As the landlord has succeeded with their claim for rent arrears, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021836 — Rent arrears at 35 St Andrews Drive, Pauanui, Pauanui 3579

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021836 — Rent arrears at 35 St Andrews Drive, Pauanui, Pauanui 3579

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions