Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5248374 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 11 Jun 2025 · Published 11 Jun 2025 · Application 5248374
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord has applied for a possession order after the tenant gave notice (for a second time) to terminate the tenancy.
- The tenant’s application is a defence to the landlord’s application. She wishes to withdraw her notice of termination meaning that the landlord will not be entitled to possession. Background
- The tenancy is a social housing tenancy. The tenant has a young child. She does not wish to continue living at the premises due to threats she perceives to herself and her child from other (gang-affiliated) tenants.
- The tenant first gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 22 February 2025. When the tenancy she intended moving to fell thought she rescinded her notice and the landlord agreed not to enforce the termination.
- On 24 March 2025, the landlord received the tenant’s second notice to terminate the tenancy. Again, the tenancy she intended moving to fell through. This time, the landlord has not agreed to accept the tenant’s wish to rescind the notice she gave. The landlord wants possession of the premises.
- When I queried why the landlord would not agree for the tenant to stay the representatives said that that the tenant’s actions impacted the efficiency of the landlord’s business since it needed to ready homes for other tenants once a tenant gave notice.
- When a tenant gives notice to terminate a tenancy, a landlord is entitled to rely on that and make arrangements for the premises to be rented again. There is a demand for social housing tenancies, so the landlord’s position is understandable to an extent.
- The difference here is that the tenant was given this tenancy due to her need, and her need remains the same.
- The tenant erred by giving notice prematurely thinking she had secured a new tenancy, when in fact she had not.
- The tenant produced in evidence a letter from her medical specialist which sets out the impacts on her if she is required to vacate the tenancy. Discussion
- While the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not create a separate category of landlord for social housing purposes, nevertheless, the Tribunal needs to take account of the special nature of such tenancies.
- When I enquired further, it appeared that the landlord wants this tenant gone because she has caused difficulties with the inappropriate dumping of rubbish and refusing entry on occasion.
- The landlord has statutory remedies if the tenant continues to commit those breaches.
- Section 85 RTA is important in this case. I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- Taking account of the section 85 directives the Tribunal declines to make a possession order for the following reasons: • The tenant erred by giving notice before she had a confirmed tenancy to move to. She acted before she should have. If the landlord were granted possession, she and her young child would be homeless. • The landlord has previously agreed not to seek possession when the tenant erred in a similar way. There is no compelling reason why it cannot continue with the tenancy again. • The tenant wants to move from this tenancy, and she probably will. She just needs more time to find somewhere to move to. • The medical evidence the tenant produced is not just a GP letter stating what she has said. It is the opinion of a qualified medical specialist, specific to the tenant’s case. It cannot be lightly set aside.
- Overall, the merits and justice of the case require that the tenant be allowed to rescind her notice to terminate the tenancy. In other words, she should be allowed to remain in her tenancy.
- That said, the tenant is on notice that should she give notice to terminate her tenancy again, it is unlikely that the Tribunal would decline a landlord application for possession of the premises. And should she continue to breach her responsibilities as a tenant by failing to remove rubbish correctly, or by failing to allow entry after notice is properly given, she risks having her tenancy terminated for other reasons. Result
- The landlord’s application for a possession order is dismissed. That finding also addresses the tenant’s application to have her notice to terminate the tenancy set aside. Name suppression
- The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as her application and her defence to the landlord’s application is successful – see section 95A RTA.