Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5439552 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 15 Apr 2026 · Published 15 Apr 2026 · Application 5439552
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders continued suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
- The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay of proceedings in the Tribunal’s Order dated 4 March 2026 is lifted.
- The tenants will have unhampered access to the premises between 10:30am and 5:00pm on Sunday 19 April 2026, only for the purpose of removing their personal belongings listed in the schedule to this Order, from the locations given in the inventory attached as a schedule to this Order.
- The landlords will ensure that: a.their dog is restrained; b.the entry gate and places where the goods are stored, will be unlocked; c.they will not be present or interact directly or indirectly with the tenants while they are removing their belongings.
- If the tenants do not remove any of the belongings listed in the inventory from the premises by 5:00pm on Sunday 19 April 2026, the landlords may: a.sell any of those items that have a value above selling costs, by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price; b. dispose of any items that do not have a value above selling costs, as they see fit; any proceeds of sale after deducting sale costs, must be paid to the tenants.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
- On 25 February 2026 the Tribunal made an Order intended to determine the parties’ dispute about the tenant’s removal of their belongings from the premises.
- On 3 March 2026 the tenants filed an application for a rehearing of the February Order. This hearing was allocated to decide whether a rehearing should be held.
- It became apparent that this application was not made because the 25 February Order represented a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, which are the grounds on which a rehearing may be ordered. 1 Rather it was made on the grounds that the tenants’ ability to retrieve their goods in terms of the February Order, were frustrated by the landlords’ actions. The landlords dispute that.
- There are no grounds to order a rehearing and that application is dismissed.
- The parties nevertheless agree that an Order should be made to try and resolve this dispute.
- The above arrangements are made with the parties’ consent.