What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5332699?

The tribunal order states: Janie Shy Tito owes Agile New Zealand Limited T/A Irent Waikato As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5332699?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $24,737.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332699?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975917-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5332699?

The tribunal order states: Janie Shy Tito owes Agile New Zealand Limited T/A Irent Waikato As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5332699?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $24,737.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332699?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975917-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332699 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332699. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 15 January 2026	$24,737.14		Rent arrears as at 15 January 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Janie Shy Tito owes Agile New Zealand Limited T/A Irent Waikato As Agent For Fangzhou Ruan $24,765.14 (“the debt”), as calculated in the table below.
Janie Shy Tito must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By making weekly rent payments of $620.00. The next rent payment is on Tuesday 20 January 2026 and these payments will continue to be made every Tuesday. b. By paying the whole of the debt, as calculated in the table below, by Tuesday 27 January 2026.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 31 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
This order takes the place of the Order dated 1 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This hearing was scheduled to consider an application for a rehearing. Rehearing application
On 1 October 2025 the Tribunal made an Order terminating Ms Tito’s tenancy and ordering her to pay $18,805.14. This amount included payment of the bond of $1,240.00 to the landlord.
On 27 November 2025 Ms Tito applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not received notice of the hearing. She also stated in her application that the rent arrears were exaggerated and that she wished to make a claim against the landlord.
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.
At today’s hearing the tenant advised that she was not aware of the proceedings taking place until late November 2025 when the bailiff appeared at her door.
She also advised that she considered that she was not responsible for the arrears because a former tenant had not paid her share.
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 Ms Tito had not received notice of the hearing, the fact remains that the arrears continue to accrue. Even if the tenant had attended the hearing, the result on that day would have been the same. She is liable for the whole of the weekly rent, and continuing paying just a half share of that rent means only that the landlord is put in a worsening position. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I note too that Ms Tito was put on notice of her obligation to pay the full weekly rent in the Tribunal Order dated 1 December 2025. However, she continued paying just half of the rent, although I note that there have been $30.00 payments over and above the rental payments of $310.00. Conditional Termination
Usually, when an application for a rehearing is dismissed, the original order is reinstated.
However, I heard Ms Tito say that if WINZ received a copy of the tenancy agreement with the former tenant’s name removed, then WINZ would pay the whole of the arrears.
As stated earlier, the worsening rent arrears situation cannot be allowed to continue.
However, I am giving Ms Tito a chance here. Rather than just reinstating the order of 1 October 2025, I am giving her an opportunity to have the debt repaid in full, as she said WINZ would do once the tenancy agreement has been altered to reflect her alone as the tenant.
This conditional termination arrangement, as reflected in the Order above, is done pursuant to s85(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious solution of disputes between landlords and tenants.
In this way I am giving Ms Tito an opportunity to repay the debt as she said she could do, while also protecting the landlord’s interest by updating the amount of rent owed, rather than reinstating the lesser amount ordered in the Order of 1 October 2025, and ordering consequences if the rent and debt are not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Conditional Termination Order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Rent arrears
I have put the rent owing as at today’s date as being $24,737.14. However, this does not include $1,240.00 bond. I am unsure whether the bond has already been paid to the landlord, pursuant to the Order of 1 October 2025. The rent record does not reflect this payment.
If the bond has indeed been paid to the landlord, the amount of rent owing should be reduced to $23,497.14. Filing fee reimbursement
As in the Order of 1 October 2025, I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was successful with the claim against her. C ter Haar 15 January 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332699. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 15 January 2026	$24,737.14		Rent arrears as at 15 January 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Janie Shy Tito owes Agile New Zealand Limited T/A Irent Waikato As Agent For Fangzhou Ruan $24,765.14 (“the debt”), as calculated in the table below.
Janie Shy Tito must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By making weekly rent payments of $620.00. The next rent payment is on Tuesday 20 January 2026 and these payments will continue to be made every Tuesday. b. By paying the whole of the debt, as calculated in the table below, by Tuesday 27 January 2026.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 31 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
This order takes the place of the Order dated 1 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This hearing was scheduled to consider an application for a rehearing. Rehearing application
On 1 October 2025 the Tribunal made an Order terminating Ms Tito’s tenancy and ordering her to pay $18,805.14. This amount included payment of the bond of $1,240.00 to the landlord.
On 27 November 2025 Ms Tito applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not received notice of the hearing. She also stated in her application that the rent arrears were exaggerated and that she wished to make a claim against the landlord.
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.
At today’s hearing the tenant advised that she was not aware of the proceedings taking place until late November 2025 when the bailiff appeared at her door.
She also advised that she considered that she was not responsible for the arrears because a former tenant had not paid her share.
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 Ms Tito had not received notice of the hearing, the fact remains that the arrears continue to accrue. Even if the tenant had attended the hearing, the result on that day would have been the same. She is liable for the whole of the weekly rent, and continuing paying just a half share of that rent means only that the landlord is put in a worsening position. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I note too that Ms Tito was put on notice of her obligation to pay the full weekly rent in the Tribunal Order dated 1 December 2025. However, she continued paying just half of the rent, although I note that there have been $30.00 payments over and above the rental payments of $310.00. Conditional Termination
Usually, when an application for a rehearing is dismissed, the original order is reinstated.
However, I heard Ms Tito say that if WINZ received a copy of the tenancy agreement with the former tenant’s name removed, then WINZ would pay the whole of the arrears.
As stated earlier, the worsening rent arrears situation cannot be allowed to continue.
However, I am giving Ms Tito a chance here. Rather than just reinstating the order of 1 October 2025, I am giving her an opportunity to have the debt repaid in full, as she said WINZ would do once the tenancy agreement has been altered to reflect her alone as the tenant.
This conditional termination arrangement, as reflected in the Order above, is done pursuant to s85(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious solution of disputes between landlords and tenants.
In this way I am giving Ms Tito an opportunity to repay the debt as she said she could do, while also protecting the landlord’s interest by updating the amount of rent owed, rather than reinstating the lesser amount ordered in the Order of 1 October 2025, and ordering consequences if the rent and debt are not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Conditional Termination Order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Rent arrears
I have put the rent owing as at today’s date as being $24,737.14. However, this does not include $1,240.00 bond. I am unsure whether the bond has already been paid to the landlord, pursuant to the Order of 1 October 2025. The rent record does not reflect this payment.
If the bond has indeed been paid to the landlord, the amount of rent owing should be reduced to $23,497.14. Filing fee reimbursement
As in the Order of 1 October 2025, I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was successful with the claim against her. C ter Haar 15 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332699 — Rent arrears at 31 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332699 — Rent arrears at 31 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

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