What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5416530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5416530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416530?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13254825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5416530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5416530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416530?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13254825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Larch Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416530 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The landlord may enforce the termination Order (made on 26 February 2026) from 12.01am on Friday, 20 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 26 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy under s56 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
On 2 March 2026, Ms Baker applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenancy was terminated under s55 when rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application. b. The tenant understands the decision to terminate the tenancy but requests at least 90 days to find alternative premises. c. The evidence provided by the landlord at the hearing does not provide a complete picture of the situation.
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. 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Baker has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In her rehearing application Ms Baker submits that the tenancy was improperly terminated under s55 RTA because rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application. a. The 26 February decision clearly states that the tenancy was terminated under s56 for breach of tenant obligations. b. The landlord application refers to the 14-day notice which had not been complied with and the Notice of Hearing lists s56 as one of the grounds. c. There has been no error in the Tribunal process in considering termination under s56 RTA.
At the rehearing hearing, Mr & Ms Baker’s main submission appeared to be that the tenants and guarantor were not properly prepared for the first hearing and now wished to present evidence to show their intention to pay the rent.
Lack of preparation is not a procedural error by the Tribunal. All three respondents were served with the Notice of Hearing at their email addresses for service on 9 January 2026 (well before the hearing). That document sets out what is required for a hearing and provides directions for where evidence is to be sent. Ms Baker correctly accepted that it was up to the respondents to be prepared for the first hearing. It is not a procedural error by the Tribunal , if parties do not read that document.
In summary both the landlord and Tribunal have communicated with all three respondents from December to February, but there was no response to the landlord and no attempt to pay until rent was 8 weeks in arrears. The landlord’s position is that the current promises are too little, too late and it has no confidence that any future communication will be effective.
Ms Baker has carried the weight of this application, Mr Baker and Mr Smith did not read emails sent to them regarding the arrears or this application. Shortly before the hearing this morning, the Tribunal received an email from Mr Smith advising that he had not been aware of the situation because the email address for service he provided in his rental application is not one he checks often. That is not the Landlord’s responsibility, and it is not a procedural error by the Tribunal.
Even if I were to consider the evidence now provided by the tenant, it would not have changed the outcome of the first hearing. The evidence simply shows that attempts to raise funds were unsuccessful and that there was no communication with the landlord or attempts to pay the rent (or make partial payments) between 17 December 2025 and 2 February 2026.
The grounds for rehearing have not been made out. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
However, I am prepared to extend the timeframe for enforcement of the 26 February 2026 Order.
The landlord may enforce the termination Order from 12.01am on Friday, 20 March 2026.
The extension granted strictly on the basis that current rent of $650 is paid in advance on Friday 13 March 2026, for the period ending at 11:59pm on Thursday 19 March 2026. If that payment is not made on 13 March, the landlord may enforce the 26 February 2026 Order immediately.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The landlord may enforce the termination Order (made on 26 February 2026) from 12.01am on Friday, 20 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 26 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy under s56 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
On 2 March 2026, Ms Baker applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The tenancy was terminated under s55 when rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application. b. The tenant understands the decision to terminate the tenancy but requests at least 90 days to find alternative premises. c. The evidence provided by the landlord at the hearing does not provide a complete picture of the situation.
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. 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Ms Baker has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
In her rehearing application Ms Baker submits that the tenancy was improperly terminated under s55 RTA because rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application. a. The 26 February decision clearly states that the tenancy was terminated under s56 for breach of tenant obligations. b. The landlord application refers to the 14-day notice which had not been complied with and the Notice of Hearing lists s56 as one of the grounds. c. There has been no error in the Tribunal process in considering termination under s56 RTA.
At the rehearing hearing, Mr & Ms Baker’s main submission appeared to be that the tenants and guarantor were not properly prepared for the first hearing and now wished to present evidence to show their intention to pay the rent.
Lack of preparation is not a procedural error by the Tribunal. All three respondents were served with the Notice of Hearing at their email addresses for service on 9 January 2026 (well before the hearing). That document sets out what is required for a hearing and provides directions for where evidence is to be sent. Ms Baker correctly accepted that it was up to the respondents to be prepared for the first hearing. It is not a procedural error by the Tribunal , if parties do not read that document.
In summary both the landlord and Tribunal have communicated with all three respondents from December to February, but there was no response to the landlord and no attempt to pay until rent was 8 weeks in arrears. The landlord’s position is that the current promises are too little, too late and it has no confidence that any future communication will be effective.
Ms Baker has carried the weight of this application, Mr Baker and Mr Smith did not read emails sent to them regarding the arrears or this application. Shortly before the hearing this morning, the Tribunal received an email from Mr Smith advising that he had not been aware of the situation because the email address for service he provided in his rental application is not one he checks often. That is not the Landlord’s responsibility, and it is not a procedural error by the Tribunal.
Even if I were to consider the evidence now provided by the tenant, it would not have changed the outcome of the first hearing. The evidence simply shows that attempts to raise funds were unsuccessful and that there was no communication with the landlord or attempts to pay the rent (or make partial payments) between 17 December 2025 and 2 February 2026.
The grounds for rehearing have not been made out. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
However, I am prepared to extend the timeframe for enforcement of the 26 February 2026 Order.
The landlord may enforce the termination Order from 12.01am on Friday, 20 March 2026.
The extension granted strictly on the basis that current rent of $650 is paid in advance on Friday 13 March 2026, for the period ending at 11:59pm on Thursday 19 March 2026. If that payment is not made on 13 March, the landlord may enforce the 26 February 2026 Order immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416530 — 14-day notice at 19 Larch Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416530 — 14-day notice at 19 Larch Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions