What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393925 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 5393925?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393925?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393925 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 5393925?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393925?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393925 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal made a mediated order for the tenant to pay rent arrears off over time, and for a termination to take place if the rent arrears were not paid on the agreed due dates.

The tenant has applied for a rehearing on the grounds that her financial situation has changed since the mediated order, which she accepts she agreed to at the time.

She claims she has had a loan from the Māori Women’s Development Inc and that she has as of yesterday, sold her Holden Colorado Ute. This will enable her to pay the landlord in full on Friday this week. She submitted a two-page loan agreement from the Māori Women’s Development Inc recording the sum of $10,000 to be advanced to the tenant on 13 February 2026.

The landlord says that after she began missing payments following the mediated order, he arranged for the bailiffs to attempt to enforce the mediated order. He said that it was then that the tenant said she could secure a loan from the Māori Women’s Development Inc. He said around a month ago she claimed to have funds available the following Friday.

The promised funds were never paid to the landlord.

The landlord wants to get paid and says the rent arrears now stand at $12,149.

Neither party identified any issue in terms of the hearing itself and the tenant has not supplied any evidence corroborating the sale of her vehicle. Analysis

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?

I am not satisfied that any miscarriage of justice occurred here. I am also not satisfied that new evidence not available at the first hearing is available. Nothing at all corroborating the tenant’s assertions has been submitted other than the loan agreement which recorded a payment to be made on 13 February. No money has come through to the landlord following that payment and the tenant did not explain what happened to that money.

I consider the evidence of the sale of the vehicle not new evidence. It is simply evidence that the tenant’s financial position may have changed. However, in any event, as noted above, nothing was supplied corroborating this.

The application is therefore dismissed.

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.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 22 December 2025 the Tribunal made a mediated order for the tenant to pay rent arrears off over time, and for a termination to take place if the rent arrears were not paid on the agreed due dates.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing on the grounds that her financial situation has changed since the mediated order, which she accepts she agreed to at the time.
She claims she has had a loan from the Māori Women’s Development Inc and that she has as of yesterday, sold her Holden Colorado Ute. This will enable her to pay the landlord in full on Friday this week. She submitted a two-page loan agreement from the Māori Women’s Development Inc recording the sum of $10,000 to be advanced to the tenant on 13 February 2026.
The landlord says that after she began missing payments following the mediated order, he arranged for the bailiffs to attempt to enforce the mediated order. He said that it was then that the tenant said she could secure a loan from the Māori Women’s Development Inc. He said around a month ago she claimed to have funds available the following Friday.
The promised funds were never paid to the landlord.
The landlord wants to get paid and says the rent arrears now stand at $12,149.
Neither party identified any issue in terms of the hearing itself and the tenant has not supplied any evidence corroborating the sale of her vehicle. Analysis
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?

I am not satisfied that any miscarriage of justice occurred here. I am also not satisfied that new evidence not available at the first hearing is available. Nothing at all corroborating the tenant’s assertions has been submitted other than the loan agreement which recorded a payment to be made on 13 February. No money has come through to the landlord following that payment and the tenant did not explain what happened to that money.
I consider the evidence of the sale of the vehicle not new evidence. It is simply evidence that the tenant’s financial position may have changed. However, in any event, as noted above, nothing was supplied corroborating this.
The application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393925 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393925 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions