What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5023308?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5023308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5023308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5023308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11373392-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5023308?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5023308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5023308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5023308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11373392-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Edgware Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5023308 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by telephone.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond.
On 10 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and for rent arrears & water rates. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
Ms Robinson applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 10 December 2024. The Tribunal was required to have a hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder.
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.
Ms Robinson claims that she did not receive notice of the 10 December hearing. The Tribunal file shows that the application and notice of hearing were sent to her by email on 14 November 2024. The file also shows that text reminders for the hearing were sent to her mobile phone number.
At the rehearing hearing, Ms Robinson maintained that she did not receive any notice of the 10 December hearing. Yet she received and responded to the Order issued by the Tribunal on that day. The Order was sent, by the same system, to the same email address as the Notice of Hearing. That was the same email address for service which Ms Robinson provided in her rehearing application.
Non receipt of information or advice was a common explanation throughout Ms Robinson’s evidence. Ms Robinson also claimed that she had not received proper notice that Crockers had been appointed as property manager. She said that Citizen’s Advice told her to stop paying rent until the landlord clarified where rent should be paid to. However, the landlord’s agent provided copies of emails and text messages sent to Ms Robinson by both the property manager and the owner of the premises. Ms Jo also gave evidence that Ms Robinson made, at least one, payment to Crockers after it was appointed by the property owner.
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Robinson did not receive notice of the first hearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed. The Order dated 10 December 2024 stands and is enforceable.
Even if a rehearing had been granted the outcome would have been the same. At the telephone hearing, I heard both the application for rehearing and reheard the landlord’s initial application. I reserved my decision in respect of both matters. 1
Where rent is 21 days in arrears the Tribunal must make a final or conditional termination Order. See s55 Residential Tenancies Act.
In an Order dated 11 December 2024, I advised that parties that If a rehearing is granted, the application for termination, rent arrears & water rates would also be reheard at that hearing.
Ms Robinson wants to stay at the property and pay the arrears. She claimed that she stopped paying rent when the property manager was appointed because she was not advised of their appointment. The rent was well over 21 days in arrears by the time that Crockers were appointed in August 2024 and was one of the reasons for their appointment.
Ms Robinson provided a range of explanations for the non-payment of rent. Some of which were contradictory. The reason for non-payment, is less important than whether the arrears can be paid. Ms Robinson did not pay rent for an extended period of time and did not satisfy me that she is able to pay the arrears in instalments.
Ms Robinson told the landlord in December that she had the funds available to pay the $10,000 arrears. She no longer has those funds and her ability to pay is contingent on an income review by the Ministry of Social Development. In those circumstances, I am compelled to Order immediate termination.
For completeness I note that both parties attempted to submit additional documents after the end of the hearing. Both were advised that it is not appropriate for me to receive and consider those documents. I have not reviewed them, and they have not formed part of my decision.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by telephone.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and refund of the bond.
On 10 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and for rent arrears & water rates. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
Ms Robinson applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 10 December 2024. The Tribunal was required to have a hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder.
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.
Ms Robinson claims that she did not receive notice of the 10 December hearing. The Tribunal file shows that the application and notice of hearing were sent to her by email on 14 November 2024. The file also shows that text reminders for the hearing were sent to her mobile phone number.
At the rehearing hearing, Ms Robinson maintained that she did not receive any notice of the 10 December hearing. Yet she received and responded to the Order issued by the Tribunal on that day. The Order was sent, by the same system, to the same email address as the Notice of Hearing. That was the same email address for service which Ms Robinson provided in her rehearing application.
Non receipt of information or advice was a common explanation throughout Ms Robinson’s evidence. Ms Robinson also claimed that she had not received proper notice that Crockers had been appointed as property manager. She said that Citizen’s Advice told her to stop paying rent until the landlord clarified where rent should be paid to. However, the landlord’s agent provided copies of emails and text messages sent to Ms Robinson by both the property manager and the owner of the premises. Ms Jo also gave evidence that Ms Robinson made, at least one, payment to Crockers after it was appointed by the property owner.
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Robinson did not receive notice of the first hearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed. The Order dated 10 December 2024 stands and is enforceable.
Even if a rehearing had been granted the outcome would have been the same. At the telephone hearing, I heard both the application for rehearing and reheard the landlord’s initial application. I reserved my decision in respect of both matters. 1
Where rent is 21 days in arrears the Tribunal must make a final or conditional termination Order. See s55 Residential Tenancies Act.
In an Order dated 11 December 2024, I advised that parties that If a rehearing is granted, the application for termination, rent arrears & water rates would also be reheard at that hearing.
Ms Robinson wants to stay at the property and pay the arrears. She claimed that she stopped paying rent when the property manager was appointed because she was not advised of their appointment. The rent was well over 21 days in arrears by the time that Crockers were appointed in August 2024 and was one of the reasons for their appointment.
Ms Robinson provided a range of explanations for the non-payment of rent. Some of which were contradictory. The reason for non-payment, is less important than whether the arrears can be paid. Ms Robinson did not pay rent for an extended period of time and did not satisfy me that she is able to pay the arrears in instalments.
Ms Robinson told the landlord in December that she had the funds available to pay the $10,000 arrears. She no longer has those funds and her ability to pay is contingent on an income review by the Ministry of Social Development. In those circumstances, I am compelled to Order immediate termination.
For completeness I note that both parties attempted to submit additional documents after the end of the hearing. Both were advised that it is not appropriate for me to receive and consider those documents. I have not reviewed them, and they have not formed part of my decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5023308 — Rent arrears at 21 Edgware Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5023308 — Rent arrears at 21 Edgware Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions