Mother's Attempt to Represent Son in Tenancy Dispute Dismissed
📌 In brief
A mother tried to represent her son and another tenant in a tenancy dispute at the Tenancy Tribunal. However, the application was dismissed because the mother did not have the proper authority to represent them and the tenants did not complete the required representation forms.
⚖️ Legal holding
A person cannot represent tenants in a tenancy dispute unless they have sufficient authority and the tenants are unable to appear in person or present their case adequately.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that everyone involved in a Tenancy Tribunal hearing has the right to attend, speak, present evidence, and question witnesses. Generally, a party cannot have a lawyer or representative unless the other party agrees, the amount of money in dispute is over $3,000, or the other party is the chief executive acting under a specific section of the Act. The Tribunal can also allow a party to be represented by a lawyer if it thinks it's appropriate.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The application was dismissed as the claimant lacked authority to represent the tenants.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Waitakere dismissed an application brought by a mother attempting to represent her son and another tenant in a tenancy dispute. The dismissal was based on the lack of authority and the tenants' ability to appear in person or present their case adequately.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4981368 1
[2025] NZTT 4981368
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WAITAKERE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAITĀKERE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. [NAME] attended in person.
2. [NAME] attended the hearing for the landlord.
3. Ms [NAME]’s application is in her own name. However, she was never a tenant at the premises. Ms [NAME] is one of the tenant’s mothers.
4. [NAME] says that Ms [NAME] was living at the premises when the Tribunal terminated the tenancy last year, but the tenants had moved out by then.
5. Ms [NAME] wants to represent her son and another tenant. She has submitted a signed authority dated 30 September 2022 that is headed “Registration for supply”. It states, “We feel As a care of Duty authorise [NAME].
6. An earlier document Ms [NAME] filed, states:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4981368 2
To those Concerned. confirmation with Reason for [NAME] The main reason the ex tenant [NAME] & myself authorised [NAME]” (JP signed attached) [NAME] to Liaise on our behalf was that [COMPANY] ([NAME]) sent a water-bill one year old” their reason (attached) they had problems with their system. Which (attached) we out of our goodwill agreed to pay off while paying the current water bill. Since then our shared tenancy 1/50 Kinross st Blockhouse Bay Auckland- The Manager ([NAME] released the previous tenant [NAME] from tenancy by excepting part payment Only “to water” ” this action enabled [NAME] to leave tenancy without notice to tenancy Contract or remaining tenant/s & foreard Rent Arrears The Manager now in breech realises his mistake so now demanding full remaining water still in (agreement) from myself, shows up unannounced scaring new “boarders telling them to leave. prompting several attempts via email to contact him directly on phone (no number advertised with their company) ignored while Unknown to us, tribunal was in application mediation- NO NOTIFACTION of mediation or hearing after that was given-including tribunal denying any court date which was 30th April -(4799877) which ruled in ([NAME]) favour) in application now for rehearing by [NAME] On my behalf. from the forward motion by SILVERFEN ([NAME]) of misleading breeching imposing defamation aggravation intimidation inflicted on myself my family, tenancy even in water agreement time communication. NOW updates authorisation to liase on my behalf & MAIN CONTACT for any all tribunal tenancy matters forthwith.
7. Under s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has the power to allow a party to be represented. Section 93(5), and (6) provide:
(5) The following parties may be represented by a representative who is approved by the Tribunal:
(a) the Crown…
…
(e) any other person, if the Tribunal is satisfied that for sufficient cause that person is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately.
(6) Where a representative of a party is proposed for the Tribunal’s approval, the Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4981368 3
8. Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms [NAME] to arrange for the tenants to fill out the Tribunal’s application for representation form. That form assists the Tribunal to decide whether it should grant a party permission to be represented. However, the tenants have not filled out the application.
9. On what I heard today, I am not satisfied the tenants are both unable to appear in person or remotely or are unable to present a case adequately. Nor am I satisfied that Ms [NAME] has sufficient authority to represent the tenants. I had hoped that at least one of the tenants would attend today but they did not. I asked Ms [NAME] if the Tribunal could telephone her son for his input, but she says he no longer has a New Zealand cell phone number.
10. I am not going to grant permission for Ms [NAME] to represent the tenants because the necessary grounds have not been made out.
11. Further, despite Ms [NAME]’s submissions, I could not discern an intelligible claim supported by evidence in the application. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the application.
12. Ms [NAME] indicated she may make further application, possibly for a rehearing of a Tribunal hearing last year.
13. The tenants should reflect upon whether any further application is warranted. Properly based claims are welcome. However, the Tribunal may make an order for costs if proceedings “are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought”.1
14. If Ms [NAME] brings any further applications in respect to this tenancy, it would be desirable for the tenants, whom she purports to represent, to fill out the Tribunal’s Request for Representation form and for the tenants to attend any hearings, preferably in person, and if not in person, then remotely.
R Kee
27 March 2025
1 See s 102(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4981368 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit [NAME]/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi [NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The person seeking to represent the tenants was not a tenant at the property.
- The tenants did not fill out the Tribunal's application for representation form.
- The Tribunal was not convinced that the tenants were unable to appear in person or present their case adequately.
- The application did not present a clear claim supported by evidence.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the mother's application to represent her son and another tenant in a tenancy dispute.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the mother's attempt to represent her son and another tenant in a tenancy dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because the mother did not have the proper authority to represent the tenants and the tenants did not complete the required representation forms.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 93 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the mother did not have the proper authority to represent the tenants and the tenants did not complete the required representation forms.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, the mother.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have the proper authority to represent others and that the individuals they are representing complete the required representation forms.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the signed authority provided by the mother and the failure of the tenants to complete the representation forms.