What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5122250?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5122250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122250?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665618-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5122250?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5122250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122250?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665618-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Middleton Road, Kew, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5122250 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Order dated 18 February 2025 can be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 18 February 2025, the Tribunal made orders terminating the tenancy and awarding rent arrears.
Mr Gubb has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 18 February 2025. He claims that he applied for an adjournment, but that registry did not forward the request to the adjudicator before the hearing.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Gubb has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There is a note from Tenancy Service’s call centre on the Tribunal file, recording that Mr Gubb called the morning of the first hearing (18 March) requesting an adjournment and was advised to contact the Ministry of Justice/Tribunal Registry if he wanted an adjournment.
At the time of the hearing, there was no record of Mr Gubb having contacted Registry. As such, I proceeded with the hearing.
After the hearing, I was made aware that Mr Gubb had emailed the Dunedin Registry before the hearing. He did not contact the Remote Registry (whose details are on the Notice of Hearing).
The email requested an adjournment and stated that Mr Gubb would not attend the hearing. It was sent at 11:28am for a hearing at 3pm. It was not supported by any evidence from Mr Gubb’s employer regarding his availability. Had the request been referred to me, I would not have granted an adjournment.
Registry did not advise Mr Gubb that an adjournment was granted. In the absence of a positive response to his adjournment request, he was required to attend the hearing. I tried to call him twice during the hearing; the calls were not answered.
Mr Gubb has not persuaded me that a rehearing should be granted.
Even if a rehearing was granted, the result would be the same. I heard from both parties today regarding the original application. The Tribunal would still be required to terminate the tenancy (for the reasons set out in the 18 February order); 3 recidivist rent arrears notices and the rent remains more than 21 days in arrears.
While Mr Gubb has complied with a conditional stay granted on 26 February 2025 by paying current weekly rent, he has made no attempt to address the arrears in the 5 weeks since then. At the hearing this afternoon, Mr Gubb asserted that he wants an opportunity to pay the arrears. He has had that opportunity.
In an order dated 25 February 2025, I directed Mr Gubb as follows: “Mr Gubb must advise the Tribunal whether he accepts the amount of rent claimed at the first hearing (arrears of $2,850 owing to 22 February 2025) and if so, how he intends to pay those arrears (including evidence in support of any repayment plan). That information must be provided at least 5 days before the next hearing.”
Mr Gubb did not comply with that direction.
Mr Fletcher opposed a conditional termination order being made. Mr Gubb did not provide any evidence on which I could reasonably make a conditional order (instead of a final termination order).
For those reasons, the rehearing request is dismissed.
The conditional stay made on 26 February 2025 has now lapsed and the landlord may enforce the order dated 18 February 2025. If the Landlord has not received the Bond, he should follow up with the Bond Centre and refer to this and 18 February order.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Order dated 18 February 2025 can be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 18 February 2025, the Tribunal made orders terminating the tenancy and awarding rent arrears.
Mr Gubb has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 18 February 2025. He claims that he applied for an adjournment, but that registry did not forward the request to the adjudicator before the hearing.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Gubb has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There is a note from Tenancy Service’s call centre on the Tribunal file, recording that Mr Gubb called the morning of the first hearing (18 March) requesting an adjournment and was advised to contact the Ministry of Justice/Tribunal Registry if he wanted an adjournment.
At the time of the hearing, there was no record of Mr Gubb having contacted Registry. As such, I proceeded with the hearing.
After the hearing, I was made aware that Mr Gubb had emailed the Dunedin Registry before the hearing. He did not contact the Remote Registry (whose details are on the Notice of Hearing).
The email requested an adjournment and stated that Mr Gubb would not attend the hearing. It was sent at 11:28am for a hearing at 3pm. It was not supported by any evidence from Mr Gubb’s employer regarding his availability. Had the request been referred to me, I would not have granted an adjournment.
Registry did not advise Mr Gubb that an adjournment was granted. In the absence of a positive response to his adjournment request, he was required to attend the hearing. I tried to call him twice during the hearing; the calls were not answered.
Mr Gubb has not persuaded me that a rehearing should be granted.
Even if a rehearing was granted, the result would be the same. I heard from both parties today regarding the original application. The Tribunal would still be required to terminate the tenancy (for the reasons set out in the 18 February order); 3 recidivist rent arrears notices and the rent remains more than 21 days in arrears.
While Mr Gubb has complied with a conditional stay granted on 26 February 2025 by paying current weekly rent, he has made no attempt to address the arrears in the 5 weeks since then. At the hearing this afternoon, Mr Gubb asserted that he wants an opportunity to pay the arrears. He has had that opportunity.
In an order dated 25 February 2025, I directed Mr Gubb as follows: “Mr Gubb must advise the Tribunal whether he accepts the amount of rent claimed at the first hearing (arrears of $2,850 owing to 22 February 2025) and if so, how he intends to pay those arrears (including evidence in support of any repayment plan). That information must be provided at least 5 days before the next hearing.”
Mr Gubb did not comply with that direction.
Mr Fletcher opposed a conditional termination order being made. Mr Gubb did not provide any evidence on which I could reasonably make a conditional order (instead of a final termination order).
For those reasons, the rehearing request is dismissed.
The conditional stay made on 26 February 2025 has now lapsed and the landlord may enforce the order dated 18 February 2025. If the Landlord has not received the Bond, he should follow up with the Bond Centre and refer to this and 18 February order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122250 — Rent arrears at 42 Middleton Road, Kew, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122250 — Rent arrears at 42 Middleton Road, Kew, Dunedin 9012

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