How much money was awarded in case 5202892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202892?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5202892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202892?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759898-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Motueka River West Bank Road, Brooklyn, RD 3, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202892 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5202892 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names name and identifying details.
The termination notice ending the tenancy on 7 June 2025 is not a valid notice.
Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Jeanette Sharland must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord served a 90 day notice to end the tenancy on 7 June 2025. The tenants applied to the Tribunal because they believe the notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
There are four issues to consider: • Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? • If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? • If so, has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? • If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Section 51(1) RTA allows the landlord to give a 90 day notice to end the periodic tenancy. I find the notice given on 10 March complies with the technical requirements as set out in section 51(3) and (4) RTA because it clearly sets out that the tenancy will end.
The 90 day notice was served by email at 9.32 on Monday morning 10 March 2025. Because Monday is a workday and the email was sent before 5pm the notice is deemed to be served on 10 March. See section 136(8) RTA.
Section 136A RTA is the section that states how to calculate the number of days. It states: Where this Act requires notice to be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which, or on the expiry of which, a thing is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests, or status is to take effect, the period— (a) commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given under section 136; and (b) ends with the close of the last day of the period.
Applying section 136A I have calculated the number of days from 11 March to 7 June 2025. The notice to terminate the tenancy only gives the tenants 89 days notice.
In Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited DC MAN CIV 2010-092-002100 the District Court ruled that the Tenancy Tribunal could not treat a notice that was two days short as a valid notice because the tenant was entitled, by the RTA, to 90 days notice. This means I have no ability to extend the notice in this case by one day.
I find the termination notice is not a valid notice. This means it is of no effect and the tenancy continues. This being the case, I am not required to consider whether or not the notice was retaliatory. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when a notice is served incorrectly.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names name and identifying details.

The termination notice ending the tenancy on 7 June 2025 is not a valid notice.

Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Jeanette Sharland must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord served a 90 day notice to end the tenancy on 7 June 2025. The tenants applied to the Tribunal because they believe the notice is retaliatory.

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.

There are four issues to consider: • Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? • If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? • If so, has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? • If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Section 51(1) RTA allows the landlord to give a 90 day notice to end the periodic tenancy. I find the notice given on 10 March complies with the technical requirements as set out in section 51(3) and (4) RTA because it clearly sets out that the tenancy will end.

The 90 day notice was served by email at 9.32 on Monday morning 10 March 2025. Because Monday is a workday and the email was sent before 5pm the notice is deemed to be served on 10 March. See section 136(8) RTA.

Section 136A RTA is the section that states how to calculate the number of days. It states: Where this Act requires notice to be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which, or on the expiry of which, a thing is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests, or status is to take effect, the period— (a) commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given under section 136; and (b) ends with the close of the last day of the period.

Applying section 136A I have calculated the number of days from 11 March to 7 June 2025. The notice to terminate the tenancy only gives the tenants 89 days notice.

In Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited DC MAN CIV 2010-092-002100 the District Court ruled that the Tenancy Tribunal could not treat a notice that was two days short as a valid notice because the tenant was entitled, by the RTA, to 90 days notice. This means I have no ability to extend the notice in this case by one day.

I find the termination notice is not a valid notice. This means it is of no effect and the tenancy continues. This being the case, I am not required to consider whether or not the notice was retaliatory. Other orders

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest when a notice is served incorrectly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202892 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Motueka River West Bank Road, Brooklyn, RD 3,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202892 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Motueka River West Bank Road, Brooklyn, RD 3,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions