What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347004?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347004?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974762-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347004?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347004?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974762-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

805 Park Road South, Akina, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347004 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by video and the landlord attended by telephone. The tenant was represented by her sister, Matalena Aumua.

On 25 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for refund of the bond and the application for compensation was dismissed.

On 2 December 2025, Faasao Aumua applied for a rehearing on the grounds that evidence was available to show the amount of rent paid for the sleepout which was relevant to the claim for compensation.

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?

For the following reasons Faasao Aumua has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

It is acknowledged that evidence was submitted with the application for rehearing showing the amount that was paid to rent the sleepout. However, it turns out that the sleepout was rented by Matalena Aumua not Faasao Aumua.

When this tenancy commenced it only concerned the main house at 805 Park Road South, Akina, Hastings. The sleepout on the property was rented by other people. When those people moved out the landlord asked for the tenant’s family to rent the sleepout. This was agreed but Matalena Aumua asked for a tenancy agreement recording the details for the tenancy including the rent payable of $220.00 per week.

The claim for compensation related to the sleepout is not an issue for the tenancy held by Faasao Aumua. I am told that the landlord had added details of the sleepout on the tenancy agreement (a copy of which has not been provided to the Tribunal) but this was after the agreement had been signed by the parties.

I have reached the conclusion that the tenancy related to the sleepout was an agreement between the landlord and Matalena Aumua and not an agreement with Faasao Aumua. It is for the parties of that tenancy to apply to the Tribunal for any claim. The evidence filed may be relevant for that application and not this tenancy.

There are no grounds for a rehearing of the order made by the Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by video and the landlord attended by telephone. The tenant was represented by her sister, Matalena Aumua.

On 25 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for refund of the bond and the application for compensation was dismissed.

On 2 December 2025, Faasao Aumua applied for a rehearing on the grounds that evidence was available to show the amount of rent paid for the sleepout which was relevant to the claim for compensation.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Faasao Aumua has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

There are no grounds for a rehearing of the order made by the Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347004 — Tenancy dispute at 805 Park Road South, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347004 — Tenancy dispute at 805 Park Road South, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions