What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5276208 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5276208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5276208?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5276208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5276208 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5276208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5276208?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5276208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5276208 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. Two trustees, Ms A, secretary, and Mr B, chairman, were available by phone and represented the [XYZ]Trust (the Trust).
Two attempts to reach the tenant by phone were unsuccessful. The phone app used for remote calls by the Tribunal simply said, “no response”. The call did not go to voicemail or carry on ringing.
Being concerned that the number was incorrect, I asked the trustees if this was a number that they had been able to reach the tenant on. It transpired that this phone number was from a tenancy agreement signed by the tenant in 2016 when the landlord of the premises was the Ministry of Education. I am therefore not satisfied that this is a current phone number for the tenant.
Where a hearing is in person, if a respondent party does not attend, the hearing may proceed, if the Tribunal is satisfied that they have received notice of the hearing.
In the present situation, there is no reason to believe that the tenant has not received notice of the hearing, but his attendance at the hearing depends on the Tribunal calling him. In circumstances where the phone number provided to the Tribunal for him was provided to the previous landlord nine years ago, has never been provided to the applicant landlords and has not been used by the landlords to communicate with him, it is not appropriate to use this number for a hearing, because the Tribunal cannot observe the rules of natural justice. In short, the tenant is prevented from attending a hearing where he is the respondent.
Before adjourning the application for termination to a face to face hearing, I explored the application with the landlord to better understand the application and see if further directions would assist in the hearing of the matter. This led to the conclusion that the application should be dismissed so that the landlord can take further advice about proper avenues to terminate or seek possession of the premises.
As explained at the hearing the Tribunal cannot provide legal advice to either party. However, it is hoped that the following summary will be of assistance to the parties and/or the Tribunal, should a further application be filed. Summary of evidence
On an unspecified date in 2016 the tenant signed a tenancy agreement with Colliers on behalf of the Ministry of Education (copy provided).
The trustees confirmed that the tenant occupies a former schoolhouse at the premises.
During 2024 the premises were transferred to the Trust. This is confirmed in a letter dated 25 October 2024 from the Ministry of Education to the Trust: Following on from Johan Neal’s letter to the [xyz] Trustees dated 03 September 2024, I wis to advise that the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) has written off the balance of the purchase price, being $12,295. The Ministry now considers that the settlement conditions contained in the Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 29 June 2016 have been fulfilled. There is an existing residential tenancy agreement in place for the property at [address]. You will need to make future arrangements with the tenant directly – I have enclosed a copy of the tenancy agreement for your records. The rental account with our Property Manager will be closed as of 25 October 2024. There is no bond lodged with Tenancy Services in respect of this tenancy.
Mr B believed that the property transferred to them was not subject to a tenancy agreement, but that is not what the letter from the Ministry says.
Ms A referred to “clause 6.2” of an agreement to vary the sale and purchase agreement. That actual agreement was not provided.
Within a letter purporting to terminate the tenancy, there is a passage which reads:
2 The Property is sold subject to the tenancies of [b] [tenant] who currently occupies the larger house on the property is otherwise sold with vacant possession and the vendor shall so yield the property on settlement.
It appears this may have been copied and pasted into the letter.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the property was transferred with a sitting tenant in “the larger house”. It is possible that there is some further documentation that differs and so I have not made a declaration that there is a tenancy agreement.
However, based on the information before the Tribunal at yesterday’s hearing, it would seem that any attempt to take possession of the premises would need to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That might include an application to the Tribunal for possession under: a. section 64 following a proper termination; or b. section 65 for eviction of squatters if there was no residential tenancy.
The Trustees have attempted to evict the tenant by giving notice on 25 March 2025 and by issuing a trespass notice on 16 May 2025.
In the application filed, the landlord said that they were seeking termination because of unpaid rent. That is a valid ground for applying to the Tribunal for termination under section 55. The landlord would need to provide a rent summary (in the form available on the Tenancy Services website) to establish that claim.
The application also referred to anti-social behaviour. If that ground were to be relied on, the landlord would need to follow the steps set out in section 55A. There must be strict adherence to that process.
The landlords have also served a notice requiring the tenant to vacate within 42 days. Ms A explained that they wanted to undertake renovations on the premises.
Until the Act was amended on 30 January 2025, 1 section 51(2)(f) provided for termination for extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of premises where it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation. The notice period was 90 days.
Currently section 51 contains no such provision. 1 See Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, section 26(1).
Section 51(2) sets out the grounds for termination on 42 days’ notice (as opposed to 90 days). The grounds for 42 days’ notice do not include renovations or refurbishment.
Based on the information provided, the landlord has not given adequate notice.
The application is dismissed.
That does not prevent the landlord from obtaining further advice and bringing a further application for termination if they wish.
Unless an until the tenant provides a current phone number, any such hearing should be in person.
Because the tenant was unable to attend and because application seems to be premature, I have suppressed all parties’ names.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. Two trustees, Ms A, secretary, and Mr B, chairman, were available by phone and represented the [XYZ]Trust (the Trust).
Two attempts to reach the tenant by phone were unsuccessful. The phone app used for remote calls by the Tribunal simply said, “no response”. The call did not go to voicemail or carry on ringing.
Being concerned that the number was incorrect, I asked the trustees if this was a number that they had been able to reach the tenant on. It transpired that this phone number was from a tenancy agreement signed by the tenant in 2016 when the landlord of the premises was the Ministry of Education. I am therefore not satisfied that this is a current phone number for the tenant.
Where a hearing is in person, if a respondent party does not attend, the hearing may proceed, if the Tribunal is satisfied that they have received notice of the hearing.
In the present situation, there is no reason to believe that the tenant has not received notice of the hearing, but his attendance at the hearing depends on the Tribunal calling him. In circumstances where the phone number provided to the Tribunal for him was provided to the previous landlord nine years ago, has never been provided to the applicant landlords and has not been used by the landlords to communicate with him, it is not appropriate to use this number for a hearing, because the Tribunal cannot observe the rules of natural justice. In short, the tenant is prevented from attending a hearing where he is the respondent.
Before adjourning the application for termination to a face to face hearing, I explored the application with the landlord to better understand the application and see if further directions would assist in the hearing of the matter. This led to the conclusion that the application should be dismissed so that the landlord can take further advice about proper avenues to terminate or seek possession of the premises.
As explained at the hearing the Tribunal cannot provide legal advice to either party. However, it is hoped that the following summary will be of assistance to the parties and/or the Tribunal, should a further application be filed. Summary of evidence
On an unspecified date in 2016 the tenant signed a tenancy agreement with Colliers on behalf of the Ministry of Education (copy provided).
The trustees confirmed that the tenant occupies a former schoolhouse at the premises.
During 2024 the premises were transferred to the Trust. This is confirmed in a letter dated 25 October 2024 from the Ministry of Education to the Trust: Following on from Johan Neal’s letter to the [xyz] Trustees dated 03 September 2024, I wis to advise that the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) has written off the balance of the purchase price, being $12,295. The Ministry now considers that the settlement conditions contained in the Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 29 June 2016 have been fulfilled. There is an existing residential tenancy agreement in place for the property at [address]. You will need to make future arrangements with the tenant directly – I have enclosed a copy of the tenancy agreement for your records. The rental account with our Property Manager will be closed as of 25 October 2024. There is no bond lodged with Tenancy Services in respect of this tenancy.
Mr B believed that the property transferred to them was not subject to a tenancy agreement, but that is not what the letter from the Ministry says.
Ms A referred to “clause 6.2” of an agreement to vary the sale and purchase agreement. That actual agreement was not provided.
Within a letter purporting to terminate the tenancy, there is a passage which reads:
2 The Property is sold subject to the tenancies of [b] [tenant] who currently occupies the larger house on the property is otherwise sold with vacant possession and the vendor shall so yield the property on settlement.
It appears this may have been copied and pasted into the letter.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the property was transferred with a sitting tenant in “the larger house”. It is possible that there is some further documentation that differs and so I have not made a declaration that there is a tenancy agreement.
However, based on the information before the Tribunal at yesterday’s hearing, it would seem that any attempt to take possession of the premises would need to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That might include an application to the Tribunal for possession under: a. section 64 following a proper termination; or b. section 65 for eviction of squatters if there was no residential tenancy.
The Trustees have attempted to evict the tenant by giving notice on 25 March 2025 and by issuing a trespass notice on 16 May 2025.
In the application filed, the landlord said that they were seeking termination because of unpaid rent. That is a valid ground for applying to the Tribunal for termination under section 55. The landlord would need to provide a rent summary (in the form available on the Tenancy Services website) to establish that claim.
The application also referred to anti-social behaviour. If that ground were to be relied on, the landlord would need to follow the steps set out in section 55A. There must be strict adherence to that process.
The landlords have also served a notice requiring the tenant to vacate within 42 days. Ms A explained that they wanted to undertake renovations on the premises.
Until the Act was amended on 30 January 2025, 1 section 51(2)(f) provided for termination for extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of premises where it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation. The notice period was 90 days.
Currently section 51 contains no such provision. 1 See Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, section 26(1).
Section 51(2) sets out the grounds for termination on 42 days’ notice (as opposed to 90 days). The grounds for 42 days’ notice do not include renovations or refurbishment.
Based on the information provided, the landlord has not given adequate notice.
The application is dismissed.
That does not prevent the landlord from obtaining further advice and bringing a further application for termination if they wish.
Unless an until the tenant provides a current phone number, any such hearing should be in person.
Because the tenant was unable to attend and because application seems to be premature, I have suppressed all parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5276208 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5276208 — 14-day notice

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