What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093628 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5093628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093628?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11881565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093628 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5093628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093628?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11881565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 95A Antigua Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093628 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
The Tribunal Order of 16 December 2024 stands.
The name and identifying details of the Landlord party are supressed.

Reasons

The Tenant claims he was not called on the number he provided to Tenancy Services.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.

Reasons

The Tenant claims he was not called on the number he provided to Tenancy Services.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093628 — Tenancy dispute at Room 4, 95A Antigua Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093628 — Tenancy dispute at Room 4, 95A Antigua Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions