What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438705 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5438705?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438705?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438705?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438705 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5438705?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438705?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438705?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Knightsbridge Lane, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438705 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The order made by the Tribunal on 21 April 2026 stands in full effect and may be enforced immediately.
The stay on enforcement granted on 24 April 2026 is lifted.

Reasons

The hearing was held remotely. Mr Olds, representing the landlord, and Mr Toeta attended the hearing. Miss Taga joined the hearing at around 5-6 minutes after the hearing commenced.
The hearing was scheduled to consider an application for rehearing made by the tenants.
On 21 April 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord immediately. The tenancy was terminated as the tenants were at least 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord filed its application. An order was also made that the tenants pay the landlord $1,066.00 for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee after the bond ($400.00) was applied to reduce the total rent arrears owed of $1,438.00.
On 22 April 2026 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had not received notice of the hearing.
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?

Mr Toeta said neither he nor Miss Taga were given any notice or warning of the hearing and could not prepare themselves or attend the hearing. He said they did not receive any email, phone call, text message or mail about the hearing and therefore did not know about the attend and could not attend to give their side of the story.
Mr Toeta’s view was that the landlord had deliberately acted so that they did not know about the hearing.
Mr Toeta apologised for the lack of communication between himself and the landlord, and explained that a close relative of one of the tenant’s had been unwell and they had been trying to get him ‘back’ to Australia which is why they had been unable to communicate. Sadly, the relative had recently passed. He said in the past when they had been behind in rent they had been able to organise a payment plan with the landlord and they had been hopeful to arrange another one for the current arrears.
Miss Taga at the hearing that she had a new phone number and email address, but had not advised the landlord of the changes 1 . The file records show that all notices and reminders have gone to Miss Taga’s old contact details. Mr Toeta’s phone number has been used to send notices to as well; his phone number was confirmed as correct. 1 It is a responsibility of the tenant to update their contact details.
I am dismissing the application for a rehearing because I do not consider that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Even if I accept that neither tenant had received notice of the hearing, the fact remains that the tenants were 21 days in arrears at the date the application was made and arrears continue to accrue. At the date the application was filed rent arrears were $994.71. At the date of the hearing to consider whether the tenancy would be terminated arrears were $1,335.57, and at the hearing to consider the rehearing application arrears were $1,373.29. Weekly rent is $88.00.
Even if the tenants had attended the hearing on 21 April, the result on the day would have been the same. That is, the tenancy would have been terminated as the tenants owed the landlord more than 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord filed its application to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord does not have to agree to a payment plan for rent arrears. If the landlord did consider a payment plan it would have been as a conditional termination. The Tribunal may make a conditional termination order if it is satisfied that the tenant will pay the arrears within the time specified and that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further rent arrears breach. Given the tenants’ rent history it is unlikely that I could be satisfied that would occur.
For the above reasons I find a miscarriage of justice has not occurred or may have occurred or is likely to occur, as the Tribunal would have terminated the tenancy as set out above even had the tenants been present at the hearing.
The application for rehearing is declined. The stay of proceedings has already lapsed and the landlord is entitled to enforce the order of 21 April 2026.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The order made by the Tribunal on 21 April 2026 stands in full effect and may be enforced immediately.
The stay on enforcement granted on 24 April 2026 is lifted.

Reasons

The hearing was held remotely. Mr Olds, representing the landlord, and Mr Toeta attended the hearing. Miss Taga joined the hearing at around 5-6 minutes after the hearing commenced.
The hearing was scheduled to consider an application for rehearing made by the tenants.
On 21 April 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord immediately. The tenancy was terminated as the tenants were at least 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord filed its application. An order was also made that the tenants pay the landlord $1,066.00 for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee after the bond ($400.00) was applied to reduce the total rent arrears owed of $1,438.00.
On 22 April 2026 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they had not received notice of the hearing.
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?

Mr Toeta said neither he nor Miss Taga were given any notice or warning of the hearing and could not prepare themselves or attend the hearing. He said they did not receive any email, phone call, text message or mail about the hearing and therefore did not know about the attend and could not attend to give their side of the story.
Mr Toeta’s view was that the landlord had deliberately acted so that they did not know about the hearing.
Mr Toeta apologised for the lack of communication between himself and the landlord, and explained that a close relative of one of the tenant’s had been unwell and they had been trying to get him ‘back’ to Australia which is why they had been unable to communicate. Sadly, the relative had recently passed. He said in the past when they had been behind in rent they had been able to organise a payment plan with the landlord and they had been hopeful to arrange another one for the current arrears.
Miss Taga at the hearing that she had a new phone number and email address, but had not advised the landlord of the changes 1 . The file records show that all notices and reminders have gone to Miss Taga’s old contact details. Mr Toeta’s phone number has been used to send notices to as well; his phone number was confirmed as correct. 1 It is a responsibility of the tenant to update their contact details.
I am dismissing the application for a rehearing because I do not consider that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Even if I accept that neither tenant had received notice of the hearing, the fact remains that the tenants were 21 days in arrears at the date the application was made and arrears continue to accrue. At the date the application was filed rent arrears were $994.71. At the date of the hearing to consider whether the tenancy would be terminated arrears were $1,335.57, and at the hearing to consider the rehearing application arrears were $1,373.29. Weekly rent is $88.00.
Even if the tenants had attended the hearing on 21 April, the result on the day would have been the same. That is, the tenancy would have been terminated as the tenants owed the landlord more than 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord filed its application to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord does not have to agree to a payment plan for rent arrears. If the landlord did consider a payment plan it would have been as a conditional termination. The Tribunal may make a conditional termination order if it is satisfied that the tenant will pay the arrears within the time specified and that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further rent arrears breach. Given the tenants’ rent history it is unlikely that I could be satisfied that would occur.
For the above reasons I find a miscarriage of justice has not occurred or may have occurred or is likely to occur, as the Tribunal would have terminated the tenancy as set out above even had the tenants been present at the hearing.
The application for rehearing is declined. The stay of proceedings has already lapsed and the landlord is entitled to enforce the order of 21 April 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438705 — Rent arrears at 8 Knightsbridge Lane, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438705 — Rent arrears at 8 Knightsbridge Lane, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions