What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415406?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5415406?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415406?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13551570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415406?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5415406?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415406?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13551570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415406 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 1 April 2026 is now lifted and the order made on 12 March 2026 may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing consideration hearing, which was held by video conference. Ms Gray attended on behalf of Kāinga Ora. Ms Tiavo appeared with a support person.
On 12 March 2026 the Tribunal made the following orders:
On 28 March 2026, Ms Tiavo applied for a rehearing, outside the five working day period.
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.
Ms Tiavo has applied for a rehearing on the grounds of procedural unfairness. She says that at the hearing she was informed by Kāinga Ora that there were three additional complaints made by a neighbour regarding alleged noise disturbances, that these complaints were not disclosed to her before or during the hearing, and they were not raised during the Tribunal proceedings. She says that she was therefore not given any opportunity to respond to these allegations.
At the rehearing consideration hearing this morning Ms Tiavo and her support person expressed unhappiness with the Tribunal’s findings but did not expand on the grounds set out in the re-hearing application to any degree.
Ms Gray said that Kāinga Ora was unaware that there had been any further incidents until the neighbour referred to the incidents in oral evidence (appearing by phone) during the hearing, that these incidents were therefore referred to during the hearing and that Ms Tiavo was given an opportunity to respond. Ms Gray referred to paragraph 15 of the Tribunal decision which outlined this evidence.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord had applied for termination of this tenancy under both section 55(1) RTA (threats to assault neighbours) and section 56 RTA (breaching obligation not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood) 1 . 1 See paragraph 3 of the Tribunal decision
Ms Tiavo’s tenancy was terminated under section 55(1) on the basis that she had breached her obligations by making threats (and permitting others to make threats) to assault her neighbours.
When a tenant has made threats to assault neighbours the Tribunal may only refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated and the tenant will not commit any further breach. All three of these elements must be satisfied if the Tribunal is to refuse to make an order 2 .
The Tribunal found that 3 : a. The breach could not be remedied (as the threats had been made and cannot be undone); b. The landlord had not been compensated (this not being the sort of breach where compensation is possible); and c. It is not unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach (as further noise control complaints had been made).
The result was that none of the three elements were satisfied. The Tribunal would have had no basis to refuse to terminate the tenancy, even if it had found that it was unlikely that Ms Tiavo would commit any further breach.
For completeness however I note that these three further incidents described in Ms Tiavo’s re-hearing application were in fact raised during the hearing and Ms Tiavo was given an opportunity to respond to them: a. The three incidents were referred to in oral evidence given by the neighbours at the hearing. Ms Tiavo was present during this evidence and was given an opportunity to cross-examine the neighbours. She chose not to do so. When questioned directly about these incidents by the Tribunal she said that she could not recall how many times noise control had been called to the property. b. Ms Tiavo was also asked whether she wanted an opportunity to respond to evidence to be filed after the hearing, confirming the further incidents (as verified as noise control complaints), she said she did not wish to do so.
Ms Tiavo has not established grounds for a rehearing. Her application for a re- hearing is therefore dismissed.

What will happen now?

The stay of proceedings granted on 1 April 2026 is now lifted and Tribunal orders dated 12 March 2026 may be enforced. 2 See paragraph 19 of the Tribunal decision 3 See paragraph 20 of the Tribunal decision
Ms Tiavo may wish to contact Kāinga Ora to discuss the process for vacating the tenancy property and her options going forward.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted on 1 April 2026 is now lifted and the order made on 12 March 2026 may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing consideration hearing, which was held by video conference. Ms Gray attended on behalf of Kāinga Ora. Ms Tiavo appeared with a support person.
On 12 March 2026 the Tribunal made the following orders:
On 28 March 2026, Ms Tiavo applied for a rehearing, outside the five working day period.
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.
Ms Tiavo has applied for a rehearing on the grounds of procedural unfairness. She says that at the hearing she was informed by Kāinga Ora that there were three additional complaints made by a neighbour regarding alleged noise disturbances, that these complaints were not disclosed to her before or during the hearing, and they were not raised during the Tribunal proceedings. She says that she was therefore not given any opportunity to respond to these allegations.
At the rehearing consideration hearing this morning Ms Tiavo and her support person expressed unhappiness with the Tribunal’s findings but did not expand on the grounds set out in the re-hearing application to any degree.
Ms Gray said that Kāinga Ora was unaware that there had been any further incidents until the neighbour referred to the incidents in oral evidence (appearing by phone) during the hearing, that these incidents were therefore referred to during the hearing and that Ms Tiavo was given an opportunity to respond. Ms Gray referred to paragraph 15 of the Tribunal decision which outlined this evidence.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord had applied for termination of this tenancy under both section 55(1) RTA (threats to assault neighbours) and section 56 RTA (breaching obligation not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood) 1 . 1 See paragraph 3 of the Tribunal decision
Ms Tiavo’s tenancy was terminated under section 55(1) on the basis that she had breached her obligations by making threats (and permitting others to make threats) to assault her neighbours.
When a tenant has made threats to assault neighbours the Tribunal may only refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated and the tenant will not commit any further breach. All three of these elements must be satisfied if the Tribunal is to refuse to make an order 2 .
The Tribunal found that 3 : a. The breach could not be remedied (as the threats had been made and cannot be undone); b. The landlord had not been compensated (this not being the sort of breach where compensation is possible); and c. It is not unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach (as further noise control complaints had been made).
The result was that none of the three elements were satisfied. The Tribunal would have had no basis to refuse to terminate the tenancy, even if it had found that it was unlikely that Ms Tiavo would commit any further breach.
For completeness however I note that these three further incidents described in Ms Tiavo’s re-hearing application were in fact raised during the hearing and Ms Tiavo was given an opportunity to respond to them: a. The three incidents were referred to in oral evidence given by the neighbours at the hearing. Ms Tiavo was present during this evidence and was given an opportunity to cross-examine the neighbours. She chose not to do so. When questioned directly about these incidents by the Tribunal she said that she could not recall how many times noise control had been called to the property. b. Ms Tiavo was also asked whether she wanted an opportunity to respond to evidence to be filed after the hearing, confirming the further incidents (as verified as noise control complaints), she said she did not wish to do so.
Ms Tiavo has not established grounds for a rehearing. Her application for a re- hearing is therefore dismissed.

What will happen now?

The stay of proceedings granted on 1 April 2026 is now lifted and Tribunal orders dated 12 March 2026 may be enforced. 2 See paragraph 19 of the Tribunal decision 3 See paragraph 20 of the Tribunal decision
Ms Tiavo may wish to contact Kāinga Ora to discuss the process for vacating the tenancy property and her options going forward.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415406 — 14-day notice at 90 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415406 — 14-day notice at 90 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

What will happen now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

What will happen now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions