What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347029 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5347029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878441-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347029 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5347029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878441-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Ewert Street, Fordlands, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347029 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant’s application for a rehearing, by phone.

On 14 October 2025, I made an order granting possession to the landlord on grounds of substantial rent arrears.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was unaware of the hearing taking place. The tenant wants to be heard on the application.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant admits that the rent is in arrears and that he will have to find somewhere else to go and relocate.

There is nothing before me which raises any credible or cogent defence to the possession order made in favour of the landlord due to substantial rent arrears.

No evidence of rent being paid has been adduced. There is also no submission/evidence has been adduced to show that the rent arrears have been cleared or will be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s current rent statement indicates that the arrears have increased since my order of 14 October 2025.

For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s rehearing application.

For the avoidance of doubt, my order of 14 October 2025 is enforceable accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant’s application for a rehearing, by phone.

On 14 October 2025, I made an order granting possession to the landlord on grounds of substantial rent arrears.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was unaware of the hearing taking place. The tenant wants to be heard on the application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant admits that the rent is in arrears and that he will have to find somewhere else to go and relocate.

There is nothing before me which raises any credible or cogent defence to the possession order made in favour of the landlord due to substantial rent arrears.

No evidence of rent being paid has been adduced. There is also no submission/evidence has been adduced to show that the rent arrears have been cleared or will be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s current rent statement indicates that the arrears have increased since my order of 14 October 2025.

For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s rehearing application.

For the avoidance of doubt, my order of 14 October 2025 is enforceable accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347029 — Rent arrears at 30 Ewert Street, Fordlands, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347029 — Rent arrears at 30 Ewert Street, Fordlands, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.