What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478951 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5478951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13790785-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478951 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5478951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13790785-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

209 Waipapa West Road, Waipapa 0295 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5478951 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 209 Waipapa West Road, RD 2, Waipapa 0295 is terminated, and possession is granted to Stuart Edmund Williamson as trustee of the Williamson Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 19 May 2026 sets out the background to the two applications.
The second hearing took place by phone on 23 June 2026 at 9.30am.
Mr Williamson participated in the second hearing. As with the first hearing, I was unable to contact Mr Stanaway on the phone number provided. The hearing proceeded in Mr Stanaway’s absence.
After the hearing finished, I received an email from the Registrar providing a new phone number for Mr Stanaway. Mr Stanaway sent an email with his 5478951 2 updated phone number at 10.09am. That email was forwarded to me at
13am.
I have decided to proceed with a decision on the evidence available to me1 on the grounds that: a. Notice of the first hearing was sent to Mr Stanaway. The first hearing was by video. All that Mr Stanaway had to do was click on the link on the notice of hearing. Mr Stanaway did not participate in that hearing. b. My adjournment order was sent to Mr Stanaway by email on 19 May. The order notes that I attempted to contact Mr Stanaway by phone, but I was unable to reach him. The order states that the next hearing will take place by phone. c. Notice of the second hearing was sent to Mr Stanaway on 26 May. The notice states that the second hearing will take place by phone. The following wording is in bold letters in the middle of the notice: An Adjudicator will contact you on the phone number provided in the application. If this is incorrect, please provide the correct number to the contact email address provided below. d. Mr Stanaway had five weeks from the date of my first order and four weeks the date of the notice provide his current phone number. He waited until 40 minutes after the start of the hearing to provide that information. e. In my view this is not a genuine error or oversight by Mr Stanaway, but an attempt to frustrate the proceedings. It would be unjust to the landlord to grant any further adjournments. Mr Stanaway has not engaged in the process in good faith. Tenant’s application
Mr Stanaway has the burden of proof in respect of his application.
Mr Stanaway did not provide any evidence in support of his application, and he did not participate in either of the hearings.
Mr Stanaway has no met the burden of proof, and his application is dismissed. Landlord’s application
Mr Williamson sought termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 5478951 3
At the hearing, Mr Williamson advised that Mr Stanaway cleared all the rent arrears by a lump sum payment made yesterday, 22 June.
As noted in the previous order, Mr Williamson sought termination and possession on alternative grounds: a. The 18 October 2025 notice; b. Rent arrears. 18 October 2025 notice
Mr Williamson and Mr Stanaway entered into a flat/house sharing agreement.
The agreement allowed either party to terminate the tenancy by giving 14-days’ notice in writing.
Mr Williamson gave 14-days’ notice on 18 October 2025.
In the previous order I made a finding that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to this tenancy.
The RTA states that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90-days’ notice in writing.2
The RTA states that any term in a written agreement that is inconsistent with the RTA is of no effect.3
Therefore: a. The term of the agreement that allowed Mr Williamson to give a 14-day notice was of no effect. b. The 14-day termination notice did not terminate the tenancy.
Mr Williamson argued that considerably more than 90-days have passed since his termination notice. However, that passage to time does not change the status of his invalid termination notice. Mr Williamson would have had to issue a new notice with a minimum 90-day period.
Therefore I find that the tenancy did not terminate by notice, and Mr Williamson is not entitled to an order for possession on that basis. Rent arrears
The fact that Mr Stanaway has now caught up on the arrears does not end Mr Williamson’s claim for termination. 2 Section 51(1) RTA 3 Section 11 RTA 5478951 4
Section 55(1) RTA states that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was at least 21-days in arrears on the date that the landlord’s application was filed.
Mr Williamson’s rent record shows that the rent was 22-days in arrears on the date that Mr Williamson filed this application (22 April 2026).
Therefore, I must make an order terminating the tenancy.
In further support of this outcome, I note that: a. Mr Stanaway has been in rent arrears of varying amounts, up to $2,450.00, since March. b. Mr Williamson carried out an inspection on 2 June 2026. The photographs from that inspection show that the premises are in a very unclean and untidy condition and there is a considerable amount of damage (both careless and apparently intentional). Bond
Mr Stanaway paid a bond of $700.00.
It is likely that the landlord will incur further costs after re-taking possession, including cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs.
The landlord will continue to hold the bond until the re-takes possession and the costs can be determined.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 209 Waipapa West Road, RD 2, Waipapa 0295 is terminated, and possession is granted to Stuart Edmund Williamson as trustee of the Williamson Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 19 May 2026 sets out the background to the two applications.
The second hearing took place by phone on 23 June 2026 at 9.30am.
Mr Williamson participated in the second hearing. As with the first hearing, I was unable to contact Mr Stanaway on the phone number provided. The hearing proceeded in Mr Stanaway’s absence.
After the hearing finished, I received an email from the Registrar providing a new phone number for Mr Stanaway. Mr Stanaway sent an email with his 5478951 2 updated phone number at 10.09am. That email was forwarded to me at
13am.
I have decided to proceed with a decision on the evidence available to me1 on the grounds that: a. Notice of the first hearing was sent to Mr Stanaway. The first hearing was by video. All that Mr Stanaway had to do was click on the link on the notice of hearing. Mr Stanaway did not participate in that hearing. b. My adjournment order was sent to Mr Stanaway by email on 19 May. The order notes that I attempted to contact Mr Stanaway by phone, but I was unable to reach him. The order states that the next hearing will take place by phone. c. Notice of the second hearing was sent to Mr Stanaway on 26 May. The notice states that the second hearing will take place by phone. The following wording is in bold letters in the middle of the notice: An Adjudicator will contact you on the phone number provided in the application. If this is incorrect, please provide the correct number to the contact email address provided below. d. Mr Stanaway had five weeks from the date of my first order and four weeks the date of the notice provide his current phone number. He waited until 40 minutes after the start of the hearing to provide that information. e. In my view this is not a genuine error or oversight by Mr Stanaway, but an attempt to frustrate the proceedings. It would be unjust to the landlord to grant any further adjournments. Mr Stanaway has not engaged in the process in good faith. Tenant’s application
Mr Stanaway has the burden of proof in respect of his application.
Mr Stanaway did not provide any evidence in support of his application, and he did not participate in either of the hearings.
Mr Stanaway has no met the burden of proof, and his application is dismissed. Landlord’s application
Mr Williamson sought termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 5478951 3
At the hearing, Mr Williamson advised that Mr Stanaway cleared all the rent arrears by a lump sum payment made yesterday, 22 June.
As noted in the previous order, Mr Williamson sought termination and possession on alternative grounds: a. The 18 October 2025 notice; b. Rent arrears. 18 October 2025 notice
Mr Williamson and Mr Stanaway entered into a flat/house sharing agreement.
The agreement allowed either party to terminate the tenancy by giving 14-days’ notice in writing.
Mr Williamson gave 14-days’ notice on 18 October 2025.
In the previous order I made a finding that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to this tenancy.
The RTA states that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90-days’ notice in writing.2
The RTA states that any term in a written agreement that is inconsistent with the RTA is of no effect.3
Therefore: a. The term of the agreement that allowed Mr Williamson to give a 14-day notice was of no effect. b. The 14-day termination notice did not terminate the tenancy.
Mr Williamson argued that considerably more than 90-days have passed since his termination notice. However, that passage to time does not change the status of his invalid termination notice. Mr Williamson would have had to issue a new notice with a minimum 90-day period.
Therefore I find that the tenancy did not terminate by notice, and Mr Williamson is not entitled to an order for possession on that basis. Rent arrears
The fact that Mr Stanaway has now caught up on the arrears does not end Mr Williamson’s claim for termination. 2 Section 51(1) RTA 3 Section 11 RTA 5478951 4
Section 55(1) RTA states that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was at least 21-days in arrears on the date that the landlord’s application was filed.
Mr Williamson’s rent record shows that the rent was 22-days in arrears on the date that Mr Williamson filed this application (22 April 2026).
Therefore, I must make an order terminating the tenancy.
In further support of this outcome, I note that: a. Mr Stanaway has been in rent arrears of varying amounts, up to $2,450.00, since March. b. Mr Williamson carried out an inspection on 2 June 2026. The photographs from that inspection show that the premises are in a very unclean and untidy condition and there is a considerable amount of damage (both careless and apparently intentional). Bond
Mr Stanaway paid a bond of $700.00.
It is likely that the landlord will incur further costs after re-taking possession, including cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs.
The landlord will continue to hold the bond until the re-takes possession and the costs can be determined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478951 — Rent arrears at 209 Waipapa West Road, Waipapa 0295

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478951 — Rent arrears at 209 Waipapa West Road, Waipapa 0295

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions