What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5413789?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5413789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13296835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5413789?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5413789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13296835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Cartvale Drive, Marshland, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413789 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing is conducted by video conference.
Ms Boese attended the rehearing by teleconference. Mr Mains, property manager for the landlord, attended by video conference
On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the landlord.
On 11 February 2026, Ms Boese applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She was unable to attend the hearing due to ill health. She says she has suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for approximately 15 years and that her condition has significantly deteriorated in recent months. b. Her medication causes severe drowsiness and nausea, and that on the day of the hearing she was unwell, lay down, and missed the call.
She further refers to personal hardship, including: a. Living alone without support; b. The recent serious car accident involving her daughter; c. Financial strain; d. An intention to clear the rent arrears shortly, including applying for KiwiSaver hardship withdrawal and making a recent part payment. The rehearing application
In support of her application, Ms Boese explained that she had experienced personal and health difficulties during the relevant period. She said that her flatmates had moved out and she had been left responsible for the rent alone.
Ms Boese also stated that she had been unwell and on heavy medication, and that she had been hospitalised during this time. She said these circumstances affected her ability to manage her obligations.
Ms Boese acknowledged that rent payments had been late. She explained that one payment delay occurred due to difficulties with her internet connection when changing service providers. Ms Boese further explained that she did not have family support and had found the circumstances particularly difficult.
During the hearing, Ms Boese confirmed that she had already vacated the premises following eviction.
Mr Mains confirmed that Ms Boese had been evicted pursuant to the earlier Tribunal order dated 09 February 2026. He advised that the landlord may pursue additional claims relating to rent arrears and other costs following the tenancy, but that these matters would require a separate application. The law
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. Discussion
I may grant a rehearing only where I am satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, or may occur, in relation to the original decision.
The matters raised by Ms Boese relate primarily to the personal circumstances she experienced at the time of the tenancy and the reasons for late rent payments.
While I acknowledge that Ms Boese experienced difficult personal circumstances, those matters do not establish that the decision of 9 February 2026 involved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Importantly, Ms Boese confirmed that she has already vacated the premises following eviction.
In those circumstances, a rehearing of the original termination decision would have no practical effect. The tenancy has already ended and the termination order has been executed.
Any issues concerning rent arrears, cleaning, damages, or other costs arising after the tenancy are separate matters which may be pursued by the landlord through a new Tribunal application if necessary.
Accordingly, the present rehearing application would not provide any effective remedy. Conclusion
Ms Boese has not satisfied me that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may have occurred in the decision dated 9 February 2026.
Further, Ms Boese did not comply with the Tribunal order and has since been evicted from the premises. As a result, the rehearing application is now moot.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing is conducted by video conference.
Ms Boese attended the rehearing by teleconference. Mr Mains, property manager for the landlord, attended by video conference
On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the landlord.
On 11 February 2026, Ms Boese applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. She was unable to attend the hearing due to ill health. She says she has suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for approximately 15 years and that her condition has significantly deteriorated in recent months. b. Her medication causes severe drowsiness and nausea, and that on the day of the hearing she was unwell, lay down, and missed the call.
She further refers to personal hardship, including: a. Living alone without support; b. The recent serious car accident involving her daughter; c. Financial strain; d. An intention to clear the rent arrears shortly, including applying for KiwiSaver hardship withdrawal and making a recent part payment. The rehearing application
In support of her application, Ms Boese explained that she had experienced personal and health difficulties during the relevant period. She said that her flatmates had moved out and she had been left responsible for the rent alone.
Ms Boese also stated that she had been unwell and on heavy medication, and that she had been hospitalised during this time. She said these circumstances affected her ability to manage her obligations.
Ms Boese acknowledged that rent payments had been late. She explained that one payment delay occurred due to difficulties with her internet connection when changing service providers. Ms Boese further explained that she did not have family support and had found the circumstances particularly difficult.
During the hearing, Ms Boese confirmed that she had already vacated the premises following eviction.
Mr Mains confirmed that Ms Boese had been evicted pursuant to the earlier Tribunal order dated 09 February 2026. He advised that the landlord may pursue additional claims relating to rent arrears and other costs following the tenancy, but that these matters would require a separate application. The law
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. Discussion
I may grant a rehearing only where I am satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, or may occur, in relation to the original decision.
The matters raised by Ms Boese relate primarily to the personal circumstances she experienced at the time of the tenancy and the reasons for late rent payments.
While I acknowledge that Ms Boese experienced difficult personal circumstances, those matters do not establish that the decision of 9 February 2026 involved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Importantly, Ms Boese confirmed that she has already vacated the premises following eviction.
In those circumstances, a rehearing of the original termination decision would have no practical effect. The tenancy has already ended and the termination order has been executed.
Any issues concerning rent arrears, cleaning, damages, or other costs arising after the tenancy are separate matters which may be pursued by the landlord through a new Tribunal application if necessary.
Accordingly, the present rehearing application would not provide any effective remedy. Conclusion
Ms Boese has not satisfied me that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may have occurred in the decision dated 9 February 2026.
Further, Ms Boese did not comply with the Tribunal order and has since been evicted from the premises. As a result, the rehearing application is now moot.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413789 — Rent arrears at 15 Cartvale Drive, Marshland, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413789 — Rent arrears at 15 Cartvale Drive, Marshland, Christchurch 8051

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