What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400253 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 5400253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400253?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13190854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400253 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 5400253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400253?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13190854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400253 — 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 Tribunal decision of 13 February 2026 stands. The stay of proceedings granted on 18 February 2026 has lapsed and the landlord is enable to order terminating the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The tenant contacted the Tribunal not long before the hearing was due to start, saying that she was not able to join the hearing. The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting the reason for her adjournment request and the adjournment was not granted. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenant.
On 13 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy for rent arrears, and that the tenant was to pay the landlord $8,086.97 for rent arrears, water rates and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was awarded to the landlord and taken into consideration in determining this was the sum was owed by the tenant.
On 16 February 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the ground that she was not properly notified of the original hearing. In her application she stated:
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?

For the following reasons has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing:
The tenant did not state in her rehearing application what incorrect contact information was given to the Tribunal. She said did not receive any notification of the hearing date or time.
When the tenant made her application for rehearing she used a different email than the email address the landlord had provided in its application.
However, I am satisfied that the email address in the application is the email address recorded in the tenancy agreement as an email that the tenant provided as an address for service for any matters, including notices, relating to the tenancy.
The landlord stated at today’s hearing that the tenant had started using a second email address in her communication with the landlord, which was causing confusion for the landlord. I am satisfied that on 12 November 2025 the landlord’s property manager confirmed raised this issue with the tenant and that the tenant confirmed that the email that was to be used for tenancy purposes was the email she had provided on the tenancy agreement. I am persuaded this is the case from the test done, checking the email was working on 12 November, and that the tenant has contacted the landlord using this email on 27 November.
Therefore I am satisfied the email address used to send the notice of hearing and claim documents to the tenant was the email address the tenant provided as an address for service.
In addition the landlord said she contacted the tenant notifying her of the hearing date and time of the hearing.
The landlord clarified that the telephone number provided on its application for the tenant is not correct and they made an error in entering the number. Regardless, the notice of hearing and claim documents have been sent to an address for service provided by the tenant and are deemed to be served. As stated in the notice of hearing the parties are able to join the hearing by video or by telephone. The notice of hearing gives instructions on how to do so for both options, neither of which involves the Tribunal ringing either party.
As I find the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing, the application is dismissed. The Tribunal decision of 13 February 2026 stands and is able to be enforced by the landlord.
In any event the stay of proceedings granted on 18 February 2026 in relation to the tenant’s rehearing application was conditional on the tenant continuing to pay weekly rent of $670.00 from the time the stay was granted until the rehearing application was determined. That meant the tenant had to pay rent of $670.00 by 23 February 2026. If any rent was missed the stay of proceedings lapsed and the order for termination could be enforced. The landlord’s rent records establish the tenant has not made any rent payment since the termination order on 13 February 2026 and the landlord was entitled to enforce that order accordingly.

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 Tribunal decision of 13 February 2026 stands. The stay of proceedings granted on 18 February 2026 has lapsed and the landlord is enable to order terminating the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The tenant contacted the Tribunal not long before the hearing was due to start, saying that she was not able to join the hearing. The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting the reason for her adjournment request and the adjournment was not granted. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenant.
On 13 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy for rent arrears, and that the tenant was to pay the landlord $8,086.97 for rent arrears, water rates and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was awarded to the landlord and taken into consideration in determining this was the sum was owed by the tenant.
On 16 February 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the ground that she was not properly notified of the original hearing. In her application she stated:
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?

For the following reasons has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing:
The tenant did not state in her rehearing application what incorrect contact information was given to the Tribunal. She said did not receive any notification of the hearing date or time.
When the tenant made her application for rehearing she used a different email than the email address the landlord had provided in its application.
However, I am satisfied that the email address in the application is the email address recorded in the tenancy agreement as an email that the tenant provided as an address for service for any matters, including notices, relating to the tenancy.
The landlord stated at today’s hearing that the tenant had started using a second email address in her communication with the landlord, which was causing confusion for the landlord. I am satisfied that on 12 November 2025 the landlord’s property manager confirmed raised this issue with the tenant and that the tenant confirmed that the email that was to be used for tenancy purposes was the email she had provided on the tenancy agreement. I am persuaded this is the case from the test done, checking the email was working on 12 November, and that the tenant has contacted the landlord using this email on 27 November.
Therefore I am satisfied the email address used to send the notice of hearing and claim documents to the tenant was the email address the tenant provided as an address for service.
In addition the landlord said she contacted the tenant notifying her of the hearing date and time of the hearing.
The landlord clarified that the telephone number provided on its application for the tenant is not correct and they made an error in entering the number. Regardless, the notice of hearing and claim documents have been sent to an address for service provided by the tenant and are deemed to be served. As stated in the notice of hearing the parties are able to join the hearing by video or by telephone. The notice of hearing gives instructions on how to do so for both options, neither of which involves the Tribunal ringing either party.
As I find the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing, the application is dismissed. The Tribunal decision of 13 February 2026 stands and is able to be enforced by the landlord.
In any event the stay of proceedings granted on 18 February 2026 in relation to the tenant’s rehearing application was conditional on the tenant continuing to pay weekly rent of $670.00 from the time the stay was granted until the rehearing application was determined. That meant the tenant had to pay rent of $670.00 by 23 February 2026. If any rent was missed the stay of proceedings lapsed and the order for termination could be enforced. The landlord’s rent records establish the tenant has not made any rent payment since the termination order on 13 February 2026 and the landlord was entitled to enforce that order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400253 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400253 — 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