What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425468?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5425468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13104976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425468?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5425468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13104976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

92 Hargood Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425468 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wiki represented by Ms Hunter.

The applicant claims that the landlord is not entitled to enforce a possession order made by Tribunal Order 5340301 on 3 November 2025 terminating the tenancy on 4 November 2025, and that she is entitled to compensation as the landlord has wrongfully proceeded with that termination.

The Tribunal order of 3/11/2025 confirmed that the significant rent arrears of $7,200 which were owing to 4/11/2025 meant that the tenancy must be terminated under s 55 (1) (a), that the bond was to be refunded to the landlord and the tenant was to pay the filing fee.

The tenant did not attend the 3/11/2025 hearing, she explained that she was at a meeting with WINZ to try and get assistance with repaying the rent debt. She did not apply for a rehearing or lodge an appeal with respect to the order issued.

The tenancy is a fixed term that commenced on 25/7/2025 and was due to end on 23/1/2026. The landlord says the property was advertised as a 6-month rental only, as she had family returning to NZ and wanting to live there from late January 2026.

After the Tribunal issued the order on 3/11/2025, ending the tenancy on 4/11/2025, the parties agreed that the tenant could stay on as she and her family had nowhere else to go, provided she paid on going rent and attempted to repay the arrears.

The tenant says she considers, this agreement meant the possession order was no longer enforceable and that the parties had entered a new periodic tenancy that could only be enforced by the landlord giving notice. She filed an application with the Tribunal to this effect on 14/1/2026, noting that the landlord should be required to give her 21 days’ notice and pay $100 compensation for not relodging the bond (which had been released to the landlord in November 2025 at the Tribunal’s direction).

The landlord says she only agreed to extend the tenancy as the tenant was desperate for somewhere to live. She was never going to renew the fixed term and wanted to help the tenant by giving her some additional time to find alternative accommodation.

When it became clear to her that the tenant was not going to vacate she applied for an eviction warrant to enforce the Tribunal’s possession order

The landlord relies on s60 of the RTA which states in subsection (1) that where a tenant remains in possession after a tenancy has terminated, all obligations of the tenant remain in force until they cease to occupy the premises and in subsection (2) that the landlord does not forfeit the right to proceed with the termination simply because the landlord accepts the payment of rent.

Section 60 (2) confirms that if a landlord does not proceed with enforcement of the possession order for more than 90 days after the termination date, then the tenant is deemed to have accepted a periodic tenancy (with the commencement date being 90 days after the termination order).

I am satisfied that the landlord was entitled to proceed with terminating the tenancy as set out in the termination order and that she had 90 days to do that starting from 4/11/2025.

I am not satisfied that the parties entered a new tenancy after the November 2025 Tribunal Order or that the possession order could not be enforced, provided the landlord sought enforcement, within 90 days of 4/11/2025.

I therefore dismiss the tenants claim for compensation as the landlord unlawfully enforced the possession order. In doing so I also note that the tenancy ended on 21 January 2026 when the possession order was enforced and would have ended with the expiry of the fixed term on 23/1/2026 in any event.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wiki represented by Ms Hunter.
The applicant claims that the landlord is not entitled to enforce a possession order made by Tribunal Order 5340301 on 3 November 2025 terminating the tenancy on 4 November 2025, and that she is entitled to compensation as the landlord has wrongfully proceeded with that termination.
The Tribunal order of 3/11/2025 confirmed that the significant rent arrears of $7,200 which were owing to 4/11/2025 meant that the tenancy must be terminated under s 55 (1) (a), that the bond was to be refunded to the landlord and the tenant was to pay the filing fee.
The tenant did not attend the 3/11/2025 hearing, she explained that she was at a meeting with WINZ to try and get assistance with repaying the rent debt. She did not apply for a rehearing or lodge an appeal with respect to the order issued.
The tenancy is a fixed term that commenced on 25/7/2025 and was due to end on 23/1/2026. The landlord says the property was advertised as a 6-month rental only, as she had family returning to NZ and wanting to live there from late January 2026.
After the Tribunal issued the order on 3/11/2025, ending the tenancy on 4/11/2025, the parties agreed that the tenant could stay on as she and her family had nowhere else to go, provided she paid on going rent and attempted to repay the arrears.
The tenant says she considers, this agreement meant the possession order was no longer enforceable and that the parties had entered a new periodic tenancy that could only be enforced by the landlord giving notice. She filed an application with the Tribunal to this effect on 14/1/2026, noting that the landlord should be required to give her 21 days’ notice and pay $100 compensation for not relodging the bond (which had been released to the landlord in November 2025 at the Tribunal’s direction).
The landlord says she only agreed to extend the tenancy as the tenant was desperate for somewhere to live. She was never going to renew the fixed term and wanted to help the tenant by giving her some additional time to find alternative accommodation.
When it became clear to her that the tenant was not going to vacate she applied for an eviction warrant to enforce the Tribunal’s possession order
The landlord relies on s60 of the RTA which states in subsection (1) that where a tenant remains in possession after a tenancy has terminated, all obligations of the tenant remain in force until they cease to occupy the premises and in subsection (2) that the landlord does not forfeit the right to proceed with the termination simply because the landlord accepts the payment of rent.
Section 60 (2) confirms that if a landlord does not proceed with enforcement of the possession order for more than 90 days after the termination date, then the tenant is deemed to have accepted a periodic tenancy (with the commencement date being 90 days after the termination order).
I am satisfied that the landlord was entitled to proceed with terminating the tenancy as set out in the termination order and that she had 90 days to do that starting from 4/11/2025.
I am not satisfied that the parties entered a new tenancy after the November 2025 Tribunal Order or that the possession order could not be enforced, provided the landlord sought enforcement, within 90 days of 4/11/2025.
I therefore dismiss the tenants claim for compensation as the landlord unlawfully enforced the possession order. In doing so I also note that the tenancy ended on 21 January 2026 when the possession order was enforced and would have ended with the expiry of the fixed term on 23/1/2026 in any event.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425468 — Rent arrears at 92 Hargood Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425468 — Rent arrears at 92 Hargood Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions