What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259859?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5259859?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259859?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259859?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5259859?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259859?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

288 Urquhart Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259859 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 January 2026 for the purpose of considering the landlord’s rehearing application.
On 8 December 2025 the Tribunal made a net award in the tenant’s favour.
On 10 December 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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 disagrees with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord said the Tribunal had not received a number of files, including the rent summary. The landlord was requested to provide a rent summary by Tenancy Services on 19 September 2025 and by the Tribunal on 23 September 2025. The matter was adjourned to a further hearing on 4 December 2025, but no rent summary was provided at that time. A rent summary was provided at the hearing on 22 January 2026. It is a list of payments juxtaposed against the date the rent was due. It does not contain the relevant rent period or when the rent payments were made. The statement shows the last payment of rent on 27 November 2024. The tenants vacated on or about 6 December 2024.
I am unaware of specific documents which the landlord was unable to file. It should have been possible to file a rent summary. If the documents were too large to be submitted and received electronically by the registry, the problem may have gone unnoticed. Ultimately the parties do bear responsibility for ensuring the documents on which they wish to rely are received by the Tribunal.
The question of rent arrears was addressed at paragraph 7 of the 8 December 2025 order. The absence of a rent summary made it impossible to calculate any arrears. Based on the rent summary provided, there may be a few days of arrears depending on which date the tenants left. This does not justify a rehearing in my view.
The landlord said the tenants kept returning to the premises and continued to do so until 24 December 2025. On this basis rent arrears (in an unquantified amount) were claimed for this further period. These events were part of the landlord’s narrative at the hearings, but the application form did not include a claim for failure to quit or for trespass by the tenants.
It is fairly evident that the tenants did not remain in occupation after the end of the tenancy (in which case, they would continue to be liable for rent). The landlord alleged that they were returning to steal and there was evidence in the Police notes that they were collecting some belongings. The tenants had quit the premises even if they had left something behind (section 40(2)(e) of the Act). The tenancy had ended and I cannot see any basis under the Act to award compensation.
The Tribunal found that the landlord had unlawfully terminated the tenancy. The landlord said she was entitled to end the tenancy for assault. The landlord was assaulted, but not by the tenant.
The landlord also said she had given the tenants 14 days’ notice in the approved form to terminate the tenancy. However, the landlord could not terminate the tenancy (which was for a fixed term until 13 May 2025) by serving either a termination notice or a trespass notice. Even a periodic tenancy cannot be terminated on such short notice.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. This issue was addressed at paragraph 10 of the 8 December 2025 order. There was no evidential support for the claimed cost. Police reports provided for the first time on 22 January 2026 indicate that the landlord had not changed the locks and did not want to do so because it was expensive. In the absence of a quote, and an indication that the landlord intended to replace the locks, I do not see how the Tribunal could have made any award.
For these reasons, I find that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred and I must decline to grant a rehearing.

Order

The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 January 2026 for the purpose of considering the landlord’s rehearing application.
On 8 December 2025 the Tribunal made a net award in the tenant’s favour.
On 10 December 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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 disagrees with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord said the Tribunal had not received a number of files, including the rent summary. The landlord was requested to provide a rent summary by Tenancy Services on 19 September 2025 and by the Tribunal on 23 September 2025. The matter was adjourned to a further hearing on 4 December 2025, but no rent summary was provided at that time. A rent summary was provided at the hearing on 22 January 2026. It is a list of payments juxtaposed against the date the rent was due. It does not contain the relevant rent period or when the rent payments were made. The statement shows the last payment of rent on 27 November 2024. The tenants vacated on or about 6 December 2024.
I am unaware of specific documents which the landlord was unable to file. It should have been possible to file a rent summary. If the documents were too large to be submitted and received electronically by the registry, the problem may have gone unnoticed. Ultimately the parties do bear responsibility for ensuring the documents on which they wish to rely are received by the Tribunal.
The question of rent arrears was addressed at paragraph 7 of the 8 December 2025 order. The absence of a rent summary made it impossible to calculate any arrears. Based on the rent summary provided, there may be a few days of arrears depending on which date the tenants left. This does not justify a rehearing in my view.
The landlord said the tenants kept returning to the premises and continued to do so until 24 December 2025. On this basis rent arrears (in an unquantified amount) were claimed for this further period. These events were part of the landlord’s narrative at the hearings, but the application form did not include a claim for failure to quit or for trespass by the tenants.
It is fairly evident that the tenants did not remain in occupation after the end of the tenancy (in which case, they would continue to be liable for rent). The landlord alleged that they were returning to steal and there was evidence in the Police notes that they were collecting some belongings. The tenants had quit the premises even if they had left something behind (section 40(2)(e) of the Act). The tenancy had ended and I cannot see any basis under the Act to award compensation.
The Tribunal found that the landlord had unlawfully terminated the tenancy. The landlord said she was entitled to end the tenancy for assault. The landlord was assaulted, but not by the tenant.
The landlord also said she had given the tenants 14 days’ notice in the approved form to terminate the tenancy. However, the landlord could not terminate the tenancy (which was for a fixed term until 13 May 2025) by serving either a termination notice or a trespass notice. Even a periodic tenancy cannot be terminated on such short notice.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. This issue was addressed at paragraph 10 of the 8 December 2025 order. There was no evidential support for the claimed cost. Police reports provided for the first time on 22 January 2026 indicate that the landlord had not changed the locks and did not want to do so because it was expensive. In the absence of a quote, and an indication that the landlord intended to replace the locks, I do not see how the Tribunal could have made any award.
For these reasons, I find that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred and I must decline to grant a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259859 — Rent arrears at 288 Urquhart Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259859 — Rent arrears at 288 Urquhart Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions