What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268060 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268060?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12143545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268060 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268060?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12143545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268060 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Sunday 3 August 2025. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The tenant attended by telephone.
This tenancy began on 10 May 2023 and was for an initial fixed term ending on 10 August 2023. It then became a periodic tenancy.
The landlord issued a 90 day notice of termination (“the notice”), which was handed to the tenant on 4 February 2025, ending the tenancy on 6 May 2025. The notice complies with the requirements of s.51 RTA.
The tenant has remained in occupation of the premises. The landlord seeks an Order for possession of the premises.
The notice does not give reasons for the tenancy being terminated. The landlord is exploring options for the premises other than continuing to rent them.
The tenant says that the notice of termination is unlawful. I understand his position to be that: a. financial planning is not one of the reasons for which a landlord can lawfully end a tenancy; b. allowing landlords to end tenancies without giving valid reasons, is a breach of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations; c. the notice of termination was retaliatory.
With the passing of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52), from 30 January 2025, “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90-days’ notice.” (s.51(1) RTA)
That amendment was made explicitly to allow landlords to end periodic tenancies on 90 days’ notice without having to give reasons, as had been required by s.51(1) and (2) before that amendment came into effect. I find that the notice is not unlawful for being given for invalid reasons.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to determine disputes between landlords and tenants, “...in accordance with this Act.” (s.77(1) RTA). It is not open to the Tribunal to decide not to apply the provisions of the RTA, for the reasons suggested by the tenant.
Under s.54(1), “Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise 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.”
The District Court has held that the 28 time period for bringing an application under s.54 is mandatory – see Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081: “In my view, s 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s 54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant's control, such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.”
No application has been brought by the tenant. I could not consider today a claim that the notice should be set aside as retaliatory.
The landlord is entitled to an Order for immediate termination, as the tenancy has been ended by a valid notice of termination. 14 As she has no fixed commitments concerning the premises, the landlord agrees that allowing a little time before possession can be enforced is appropriate. I agree, especially considering the tenant’s clearly stated intention to challenge this decision on appeal, which may result in a stay being issued.
The landlord is entitled to a suppression Order. Suppression is ordered for the tenant so as not to pre-empt any decision about that on appeal.
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Sunday 3 August 2025. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The tenant attended by telephone.
This tenancy began on 10 May 2023 and was for an initial fixed term ending on 10 August 2023. It then became a periodic tenancy.
The landlord issued a 90 day notice of termination (“the notice”), which was handed to the tenant on 4 February 2025, ending the tenancy on 6 May 2025. The notice complies with the requirements of s.51 RTA.
The tenant has remained in occupation of the premises. The landlord seeks an Order for possession of the premises.
The notice does not give reasons for the tenancy being terminated. The landlord is exploring options for the premises other than continuing to rent them.
The tenant says that the notice of termination is unlawful. I understand his position to be that: a. financial planning is not one of the reasons for which a landlord can lawfully end a tenancy; b. allowing landlords to end tenancies without giving valid reasons, is a breach of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations; c. the notice of termination was retaliatory.
With the passing of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52), from 30 January 2025, “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90-days’ notice.” (s.51(1) RTA)
That amendment was made explicitly to allow landlords to end periodic tenancies on 90 days’ notice without having to give reasons, as had been required by s.51(1) and (2) before that amendment came into effect. I find that the notice is not unlawful for being given for invalid reasons.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to determine disputes between landlords and tenants, “...in accordance with this Act.” (s.77(1) RTA). It is not open to the Tribunal to decide not to apply the provisions of the RTA, for the reasons suggested by the tenant.
Under s.54(1), “Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise 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.”
The District Court has held that the 28 time period for bringing an application under s.54 is mandatory – see Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081: “In my view, s 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s 54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant's control, such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.”
No application has been brought by the tenant. I could not consider today a claim that the notice should be set aside as retaliatory.
The landlord is entitled to an Order for immediate termination, as the tenancy has been ended by a valid notice of termination. 14 As she has no fixed commitments concerning the premises, the landlord agrees that allowing a little time before possession can be enforced is appropriate. I agree, especially considering the tenant’s clearly stated intention to challenge this decision on appeal, which may result in a stay being issued.
The landlord is entitled to a suppression Order. Suppression is ordered for the tenant so as not to pre-empt any decision about that on appeal.
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268060 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268060 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions