Tenancy Tribunal Reinstates Previous Order After Tenant Absence
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Rotorua reinstated a previous order after the tenants failed to show up for the hearing. The landlord said the tenants had blocked access to the property and hadn't left the premises as required.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's failure to appear at a hearing allows the Tribunal to reinstate a previous order.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal reinstated its previous order due to the tenants' failure to appear at the hearing.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Rotorua reinstated its previous order after the tenants failed to appear at the hearing. The landlord claimed the tenants had obstructed access to the premises and failed to vacate the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5207495 1
[2025] NZTT 5207495
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT ROTORUA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal Order of 15 April 2025 is reinstated.
Reasons:
1. The Landlord attended the hearing, which is a rehearing. The Tenants did not answer their phone when called or notify the registry that they would not be contactable.
2. The Landlord says the Tenants have been obstructing access to the premises, including efforts to undertake testing for methamphetamine. The Landlord refers to vindictive behaviour by the Tenants also. The Tenants have vacated the premises. The Landlord has received a water bill for $1,100.00 and the Landlord confirms there are no leaks at the property.
3. Against that background, I consider it more likely than not that the Tenants did not intend to appear at the hearing today.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5207495 2
4. The Landlord intends to file a further application, which could include claims for exemplary damages for the Tenants failure to quit the premises, and compensation losses in connection with water consumption, based on a final water metre reading.
[NAME]
21 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5207495 3
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 tenancy.govt.nz/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 tenancy.govt.nz/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.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5207495 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord attended the rehearing.
- The tenants did not answer their phone or notify the registry of their unavailability.
- The tenants had been obstructing access to the premises, including methamphetamine testing efforts.
- The tenants had vacated the premises and exhibited vindictive behavior.
- The landlord received a water bill for $1,100, and there were no leaks at the property.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal reinstated its previous order because the tenants didn't attend the hearing.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord claimed the tenants were blocking access to the property and hadn't left the premises as required.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to reinstate the previous order because the tenants didn't respond to the call or notify the registry of their unavailability.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the tenants' failure to appear at the hearing.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, who originally brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If a tenant fails to appear at a hearing, the Tenancy Tribunal may reinstate a previous order.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents.