What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387381 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5387381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387381?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13177677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387381 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5387381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387381?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13177677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

106 Buckley Road, Southgate, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387381 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 11 February 2026 is lifted.
The order dated 3 February 2026 is enforceable.

Reasons

On 3 February 2026, the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy. The Tribunal also ordered a refund of the bond to the landlord and directed the tenant to pay the landlord $1,913.28 in rent arrears and the filing fee.
On 9 February 2026, the tenant applied for a rehearing.
A hearing was held on 20 February 2026 to consider the tenant’s application and receive evidence and submissions from both parties. The law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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”.
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. 1 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.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant accepts they knew about the date, time and location of the video hearing on 3 February 2026. They accept they did not attend the hearing and gave evidence they could not access the video link in the notice of hearing. The tenant claims they waited for a call from the Tribunal. When no call came, the tenant claims they called the relevant numbers but were put on hold. By the time the tenant was able to call into the hearing, the hearing had finished.
The tenant accepts that they are in rent arrears but claims this is not their fault. The tenant claims they previously rented a premises from Kainga Ora Homes & Communities, which they ended in August 2025. The tenant claims their benefit continued to be redirected to Kainga Ora after this date instead of their new landlord, [the landlord]. The tenant gave evidence they have tried to obtain a refund of the overpaid rent from Kainga Ora however, Kainga Ora claim the tenant did not validly terminate their tenancy and they are entitled to keep rent payments made by the tenant up to 18 November 2025.
The tenant claims the issue of rent arrears is an issue for [the landlord] and Kainga Ora to sort out. The tenant claims [the landlord] have told her that they will liaise with Kainga Ora to sort the issue out but have not done so. The tenant also claims that [the landlord] should have organised for a redirection of her benefit to begin from the beginning of the tenancy and the fact this has not occurred is also [the landlord’s] fault. The tenant claims they have paid rent during the tenancy, but it has gone to the wrong landlord. The tenant claims they have organised the redirection of their benefit to include an additional $30.00 per week to go towards the arrears.
The landlord opposes the tenant’s application for a rehearing. They dispute the claim that they agreed to sort the issue of alleged overpayment of rent out with Kainga Ora. The landlord says that in October 2024 they reached out to the tenant to offer support, because rent arrears were accruing. They say that they attended an appointment with the tenant at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to organise a redirection of the tenant’s benefit to them, but they never agreed to engage in discussions with Kainga Ora about the alleged overpayment of rent. The landlord claims the tenant is still in rent arrears and submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears of $2,430.44 up to the date of the hearing. Analysis
The tenant received the notice of the hearing with instructions about how to attend the hearing by video and telephone. The notice of hearing provides a link to attend by video and states the following where a party cannot attend by video: If you are unable to attend by video, you can attend the hearing by telephone. Just prior to the hearing start time you must phone one of the phone numbers below, and at the prompt, enter the phone conference ID number following by # [5 separate landlines and conference ID provided]
The landlord was provided with the same notice of hearing and video link that was sent to the tenant. The landlord was able to attend the hearing by video using the link. Therefore, I consider it unlikely that the inability of the tenant to attend the hearing by video was a result of any defect with the link or procedural error by the Tribunal.
Where a party cannot attend the hearing by video, the notice of hearing clearly states the procedure to be followed. This requires the tenant to call one of five landline numbers provided. The notice of hearing does not mention that the Tribunal will call either of the parties if they do not attend. Despite this, the tenant waited for a phone call from the Tribunal. The tenant’s decision to do this was not caused by any representation or procedural error made by the Tribunal.
The tenant submitted screenshots of their call log history. These show that the tenant made three calls to Tenancy Services on 3 February 2026 at the following times: a. 12:25pm b. 12:26pm c. 12:27pm d. 12:28pm
The number for Tenancy Services is 0800 836 262. The notice of hearing does not list this as a number to call to attend the hearing. It lists 5 separate landlines. The fact that the tenant called Tenancy Services instead of one of the 5 landlines provided was also not caused by any representation or procedural error of the Tribunal.
The tenant’s call log history shows that they only called one of the 5 landlines provided in the notice of hearing at 12:38pm. The hearing began at 12:15pm and had concluded by the time the tenant made the phone call. Therefore, the tenant did not attend the hearing. The fact that there was a delay of 18 minutes before the tenant called one of the numbers provided was not a result of any procedural error caused by the Tribunal. The notice of hearing clearly states the procedure to be followed. The tenant did not follow this.
For these reasons, I am not convinced the tenant’s inability to attend the hearing on 3 February 2026 was caused by a procedural error by the Tribunal.
In their application for a rehearing, the tenant said that the arrears would be cleared by 12 February 2026. At the hearing on 20 February 2026, the arrears had not cleared and had increased. The tenant gave evidence that Work and Income New Zealand had declined to help them clear the arrears in full.
The tenant did not submit any evidence to support their claim that their tenancy with Kainga Ora was validly terminated and the tenant has overpaid rent to them. The tenant has not filed an application against Kainga Ora for the alleged overpaid rent with the Tribunal.
The tenant claims they have organised a redirection of their benefit to include an additional $30.00 per week to go towards the arrears. No evidence of this was submitted and no additional payments towards the arrears have been made at all throughout the tenancy. The rent arrears have increased since the date of the last hearing and the tenant has only consistently paid their rent for the last 5 weeks. For all of these reasons, I am not convinced the tenant will refrain from committing another relevant breach in the future. 2 This is not a case in which I would have made a conditional termination order.
The tenant has not submitted any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing that would have affected my decision. The RTA is clear that when a tenant is more than 21 days’ in arrears by the date of the hearing, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. 3
For all of these reasons, I find no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55(2). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 56(2) and 55(1)(a)
The stay of proceedings ordered on 11 February 2026 is lifted.
The order dated 3 February 2026 is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387381 — Rent arrears at 106 Buckley Road, Southgate, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387381 — Rent arrears at 106 Buckley Road, Southgate, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions