Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5369926 — Rent arrears at 6 Birdwood Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710
Decided 12 Jun 2026 · Published 12 Jun 2026 · Application 5369926
- Rent arrears
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] the sum of $3,536.25 immediately, for the
Reasons
set out in the Tribunal’s order of 20 February 2026.
- The stay of enforcement is lifted.
REASONS
- The Tribunal must consider a matter that returns by way of a rehearing granted. The tenancy has ended. On 20 February 2025 the Tribunal ordered that the tenant pay rent arrears and a range of compensation to the landlord. In the later rehearing application, the tenant raised a vesting order made by the Family Court, vesting the tenancy to a third-party. A rehearing of the 20 February 2026 order was granted to consider this new matter, that is who would be liable for any amounts owing, Ms Northover-Mattews, or the third-party.
BACKGROUND
- The background in this case is extensive, but for the purpose of this order can be summarised as follows.
- The tenancy commenced on 29 November 2024. The sole tenant was [The tenant/s]. The landlord was [The landlord/s].
- The tenant has recently provided documentation from the Family Court which records that a third-party applied for a without notice tenancy and furniture order.
- On 31 July 2025, the Family Court made a temporary tenancy order, vesting the tenancy in the third-party from 1 August 2025. On 12 March 2026 the Family Court made that order permanent.
- The landlord’s evidence is that he was never made aware of that order, and further that, to his knowledge, the third-party never moved into the tenancy.
- On 7 October 2025, Ms Northover-Matthews gave notice terminating the tenancy. I have set that out below.
- On 16 October 2025, Ms Northover-Matthews filed an application against the landlord (application 5367861). In the application, the tenant records that the date her tenancy ended was 10 October 2025.
- On 13 November 2025 the landlord filed an application against the tenant.
- Both applications came to a hearing before the Tribunal on 20 February 2026.
- On the morning of the hearing, the tenant requested to attend the hearing by phone. I considered the request, but it was declined given the complexity of the case, and because there was a request that the hearing be interpreted. It was not suitable to be conducted by phone.
- The hearing proceeded; there was no appearance by the tenant.
- That same day, the Tribunal issued an order that the bond be refunded to the landlord, and the tenant to pay the balance of $3,536.25 to the landlord. The tenant’s application was dismissed.
- On 25 February 2026, the tenant applied for a rehearing. The tenant states that she was not the tenant at the end of the tenancy, and referred to the Family Court orders noted above.
- On 13 April 2026, the Tribunal granted the application for rehearing in part, but only regarding the landlord’s application. The order granting the rehearing confirmed:
- Tenancy Services will schedule a 2-hour hearing before myself in Masterton. The purpose of the hearing will be solely to determine whether the claims are correctly advanced against Ms Northover- Matthews.
- For the avoidance of doubt, Ms Northover-Matthews must either attend the hearing in person, or appoint a representative.
- A hearing was scheduled for today,12 June 2026, commencing at 2:00pm. The landlord attended as scheduled. The tenant attended the courthouse around 2:15pm after the hearing started, so the hearing was paused. I am advised that the tenant took issue with the Court Security Officers searching her bag and became abusive to the Court Security Officer. I could hear shouting from the hearing room, which I understand was the tenant. The tenant was denied admission to the courthouse for 15 minutes to give her a chance to calm down, but she left the courthouse and did not return.
- When advised the tenant had not returned, the hearing then proceeded.
TENANTS CASE
- For the above reasons, the tenant did not attend the hearing, so has not provided submissions to me. I will proceed on the basis that the tenant considers that, from 1 August 2025, the third-party was liable for any rent or compensation.
LANDLORDS CASE
- The landlord’s position is that the order the Tribunal made in February, was correctly made against Ms Northover-Matthews.
- The landlord states that he was not aware of the family court orders until the application for rehearing had been filed, and he received the copies of the orders with those documents.
- Otherwise, the landlord states that the tenant continued to live in the premises, and that the tenant’s mother was also living in the dwelling until possession returned on 10 October 2025. The landlord states that he has never met the third-party, and to his knowledge, the third-party had not moved into the Tenancy.
- When the tenancy ended on 10 October, the landlord stated that there were wide-ranging goods and belongings in the tenancy, and he did not recall any indication of goods that would be indicative of a male in the premises.
- Further the landlord submit that Ms Northover-Matthews continue to engage with the landlord as if she were the tenant, including providing the notice to end the tenancy.
ANALYSIS
- The Tenancy has ended, but the question to be determined is the extent of Ms Northover-Matthew’s liability for rent arrears and compensation when the premises were returned to the landlord on 10 October 2025. In particular, is Ms Northover-Matthews liable, or is it the third-party.
- I have determined that it must be Ms Northover-Matthews liable for the arrears and costs arising for these reasons.
- There is no doubt that originally the Tenancy was with Ms Northover- Matthews only. While there was a family court order vesting the Tenancy in the third-party, I am not persuaded that the evidence shows that the third- party took up the tenancy, but if I were wrong in that, I consider that Ms Northover-Matthews took the Tenancy back.
- There are extensive text message communications provided between Ms Northover-Matthews and the landlord, after 1 August 2025, and they do not reflect Ms Northover-Matthews considering she was no longer the tenant. In fact, a plain reading of those clearly indicates that she considered herself the tenant.
- There is also the fact that it was Ms Northover-Matthews who gave notice to the landlord, ending the tenancy. The notice is as follows:
- In that notice, Ms Northover-Matthews refers to terminating “my lease” which plainly reflects her view that she was the tenant.
- There is also the application that Ms Northover-Matthews filed with the Tribunal, where she has indicated on the application form, that her tenancy ended on 10 October 2025, which also indicates that she believed she was the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
- While the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires tenancy agreements to be in writing, the RTA confirms that just because a tenancy agreement is not in writing, is not evidence that there is no Tenancy in place. Section 13C confirms: 13C Tenancy agreements not unenforceable on grounds not in writing Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
- Accordingly, even if this were a situation where there was a technical severing of the tenancy with the Family Court order, if Ms Northover- Matthews then took back the Tenancy, in fact, the Tribunal can make a finding that there is a valid tenancy, without an updated written agreement in place.
- The result is that I find Ms Northover-Matthews was the valid tenant at the end of the tenancy, and so she must be liable for any order made by the Tribunal.
- I adopt the order from 20 February 2026, and for the reasons set out in that order, find Ms Northover-Matthews must pay the landlord the sum of $3,536.25 immediately.