What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5357821?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5357821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357821?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13272027-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5357821?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5357821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357821?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13272027-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Dunbarton Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357821 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted with effect that the applicant is entitled to possession of the property at 8 Dunbarton Drive, Ranui, Auckland immediately. Reaons:
Only the applicant attended the hearing. Ms Edgar did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.
On 9 January 2026 the Tribunal made a conditional termination order in relation to the tenancy.
Ms Edgar was required to repay a rent debt and to restore the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove excessive rubbish that had accumulated both inside and outside the property. She was required to allow access for an inspection to occur on 28 January 2026.
The 9 January 2026 conditional termination order followed an earlier conditional termination order issued on 13 November 2026 also requiring the property to be restored to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and excessive rubbish removed.
Ms Edgar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was in hospital and unable to facilitate the January 2026 inspection.
Despite the applicant’s opposition given the long history of breach, and by a fine margin, the rehearing application was set for a hearing today.
A stay of proceedings was granted conditional on the rent and arrears continuing to be paid and Ms Edgar permitting a property inspection by noon on 27 February 2026, and satisfying the applicant (at its discretion) that the rubbish had been moved and the property was reasonably clean and tidy at that inspection.
The inspection occurred and the photographs and evidence provided this morning confirm that the property remains in a condition that falls well short of reasonably clean and tidy and excessive rubbish remains both inside and outside.
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?

The applicant provided confirmation (evidence and submissions) that the property inspection had occurred, and the property fell well short of the required standard both in terms of cleanliness and the excessive rubbish that remains both inside and outside.
Ms Edgar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
She did not appear at the hearing and equally importantly the evidence establishes convincingly, that the property remains in a very poor condition in terms of cleanliness and the excessive rubbish, both inside and outside has not been removed.
This situation has continued to exist for many months and the applicant’s submission that the tenancy must end so the property can be restored to a reasonable condition is entirely reasonable. J Maher 12 March 2026

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted with effect that the applicant is entitled to possession of the property at 8 Dunbarton Drive, Ranui, Auckland immediately. Reaons:
Only the applicant attended the hearing. Ms Edgar did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.
On 9 January 2026 the Tribunal made a conditional termination order in relation to the tenancy.
Ms Edgar was required to repay a rent debt and to restore the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove excessive rubbish that had accumulated both inside and outside the property. She was required to allow access for an inspection to occur on 28 January 2026.
The 9 January 2026 conditional termination order followed an earlier conditional termination order issued on 13 November 2026 also requiring the property to be restored to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and excessive rubbish removed.
Ms Edgar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was in hospital and unable to facilitate the January 2026 inspection.
Despite the applicant’s opposition given the long history of breach, and by a fine margin, the rehearing application was set for a hearing today.
A stay of proceedings was granted conditional on the rent and arrears continuing to be paid and Ms Edgar permitting a property inspection by noon on 27 February 2026, and satisfying the applicant (at its discretion) that the rubbish had been moved and the property was reasonably clean and tidy at that inspection.
The inspection occurred and the photographs and evidence provided this morning confirm that the property remains in a condition that falls well short of reasonably clean and tidy and excessive rubbish remains both inside and outside.
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?

The applicant provided confirmation (evidence and submissions) that the property inspection had occurred, and the property fell well short of the required standard both in terms of cleanliness and the excessive rubbish that remains both inside and outside.
Ms Edgar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
She did not appear at the hearing and equally importantly the evidence establishes convincingly, that the property remains in a very poor condition in terms of cleanliness and the excessive rubbish, both inside and outside has not been removed.
This situation has continued to exist for many months and the applicant’s submission that the tenancy must end so the property can be restored to a reasonable condition is entirely reasonable. J Maher 12 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357821 — Cleanliness at 8 Dunbarton Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357821 — Cleanliness at 8 Dunbarton Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions