Tenant's Rehearing Request Denied by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the tenant's request for a rehearing because the tenant did not provide enough evidence to support his claim that he was wrongly excluded from the original hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rehearing only if they can demonstrate substantive grounds for reconsideration.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order a rehearing of a case if a significant mistake or unfairness has happened, or might happen. An application for a rehearing must be submitted within 5 working days of the decision, though the Tribunal can sometimes allow more time.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application for rehearing was denied due to insufficient evidence and previous opportunities to present arguments.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the tenant's application for rehearing, finding that the tenant had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant a rehearing despite previous opportunities to present arguments.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5093628 1
[2025] NZTT 5093628
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT ROTORUA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Room 4, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
2. The Tribunal Order of 16 December 2024 stands.
3. The name and identifying details of the Landlord party are supressed.
Reasons:
1. The Tenant claims he was not called on the number he provided to Tenancy Services.
2. I have no record of the number that was called, but I confirmed with the Tenant the number I would have used. That is the number recorded in the system as having been provided to the Registry in the lead-up to the hearing. The records show the Tenant had requested that this number not be disclosed to the Landlord.
3. I cannot definitively confirm whether the correct number was called or inputted correctly by me. The Tenant says I confirmed, in my first decision, I had spoken with someone, and the call had dropped. He said that person was not him.
4. The Landlord says the Tenant had ample opportunity to dispute the rent records but did not do so, nor has he made any payment towards the arrears since the initial hearing. (The Landlord confirms having received a $60 payment from the Ministry of Social Development before payments were stopped.)
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5093628 2
5. Declining the rehearing request would have brought the matter to a permanent close. I considered that inappropriate given the Tenant’s strong desire to be heard and his frustration over not participating in the original hearing. He also claimed to hold evidence undermining the Landlord’s rent summary.
6. I considered there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice if the Tenant were not allowed to be heard. I therefore set the matter down for a rehearing consideration and directed the Tenant to provide payment records to challenge the Landlord’s claim.
7. I adjourned the rehearing once to allow the Tenant time to obtain records from Work and Income and asked him to provide evidence to the Registry that he had made this request.
8. At today’s hearing, the Tenant said Work and Income had initially told him to submit an Official Information Act request, but later admitted he had been correct to seek the records under private agency disclosure. No supporting documentation has been provided to the Registry. The Tenant now seeks a further adjournment based solely on his oral account.
9. I explained to the Tenant that some parties exploit rehearing processes to delay outcomes or frustrate the other party’s efforts to seek justice. It is my responsibility to look beyond process irregularities and assess whether there are substantive grounds for a rehearing. Granting a rehearing without such grounds risks unfairness to the other party, who did engage fully in the original process and expects finality.
10. At today’s hearing, the Tenant accused me of bias for considering his rehearing request when I was the adjudicator at the original hearing. He said his lawyer questioned why the matter was not already being treated as a granted rehearing given I had found a breach of due process. I had made no findings but can appreciate why the Tenant may have understood that I had. There are effectively two limbs to my inquiry, as I explain below. I adjourned the matter to get further information in respect of the second limb of my inquiry, from the Tenant.
11. I adjourned the rehearing consideration to await further information from the Tenant to assess whether he has an arguable defence. To date, he has not clearly stated what his defence is. His position is essentially: “The Landlord’s rent summary is wrong, I’m not sure how, but I’ll prove it once I get payment information from Work and Income.”
12. The Tribunal does receive rehearing requests from parties who were excluded from hearings, but those applicants must still show that their participation would likely have led to a different outcome.
13. The application for rehearing is declined pursuant to section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, for even if I did not call the Tenant at the first hearing, he has now had three opportunities to argue his case, which has
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5093628 3
necessarily included a consideration of whether the Landlord’s claims are invalid in any way. Even if I am wrong in not granting a rehearing, stepping back, and having regard to the interests of justice in this case, it could not be said that the Tenant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to argue his case.
[NAME]
22 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5093628 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 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5093628 5
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 Tenant claimed he was not called on the number he provided to Tenancy Services.
- The Tenant argued he had evidence undermining the Landlord’s rent summary.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Tenant requested a rehearing based solely on his oral account without providing supporting documentation.
- The Tenant did not clearly state what his defense was, relying instead on obtaining payment information from Work and Income.
- The Tenant did not provide substantive grounds for a rehearing despite multiple opportunities to present his case.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the tenant's request for a rehearing.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed he was not called during the original hearing and sought a rehearing to present new evidence.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the tenant because he failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claim and had previously had opportunities to present his arguments.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 105, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's failure to provide substantive evidence to support his request for a rehearing.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they provide strong evidence to support their request for a rehearing.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.