What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329459 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order suppressing the names and identifying details of the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5329459?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329459?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329459 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order suppressing the names and identifying details of the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5329459?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329459?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329459?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113233-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329459 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by video.

This is not the first hearing regarding this dispute.

On 20 August 2025, the applicant made an application for termination and rent arrears. A phone hearing was conducted on 21 October 2025. The respondent did not attend. The adjudicator terminated the tenancy and ordered payment of rent arrears up to that date ($9,188.57) along with reimbursement of the filing fee.

The respondent applied for a rehearing. Following a hearing of that application, on 19 December 2025 a rehearing was granted. The earlier order was stayed on the condition that the respondent continue to pay rent. The order specified that the next payment was due on 27 November 2025, and if not complied with, the stay of proceedings would lapse and the original order could be enforced.

In fact, the respondent had moved out on 24 September 2025, having been given a 90-day notice on 28 July 2025. The tenancy was due to end on 26 October 2025.

The respondent says that she owes rent only to 24 September 2025, when she moved out.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), where a landlord gives a 90-day notice, a tenant may still end the tenancy earlier by giving a 21-day notice to the landlord. There was no evidence before me that a 21-day notice was given.

The respondent explained that “[name]” knew she was moving out. The tenancy agreement mentions only the respondent as a tenant. When asked for clarification, it was explained that [name] is the applicant owner’s son who was also living at the property and had continued to live there. The respondent had been in a relationship with him.

This piece of information changes the picture entirely. Section 5 sets out specific situations that the Act does not apply to. One of those is: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family

The applicant accepted that her son continued to live there but noted that she did not have a tenancy agreement with him.

Although the parties had signed a tenancy agreement, the legislation is explicit that the Act does not apply to this situation. Therefore, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the applicant’s application is dismissed.

Because a rehearing was granted on 19 December 2025, the previous orders made on 27 November 2025 and 21 October 2025 were vacated and cannot be enforced.

This appears to be a family dispute and I have decided to suppress the names and identifying details of the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by video.

This is not the first hearing regarding this dispute.

In fact, the respondent had moved out on 24 September 2025, having been given a 90-day notice on 28 July 2025. The tenancy was due to end on 26 October 2025.

The respondent says that she owes rent only to 24 September 2025, when she moved out.

The applicant accepted that her son continued to live there but noted that she did not have a tenancy agreement with him.

Because a rehearing was granted on 19 December 2025, the previous orders made on 27 November 2025 and 21 October 2025 were vacated and cannot be enforced.

This appears to be a family dispute and I have decided to suppress the names and identifying details of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329459 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329459 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions