What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315567 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 5315567?

The reconciled net award was $1,671.43.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315567?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12698463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315567 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 5315567?

The reconciled net award was $1,671.43.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315567?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12698463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315567 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,671.43 from the bond, being rent in lieu of notice to 24 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,950.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,671.43 [The tenant/s]: $278.57

Reasons

The tenants (R and C for all tenants) and the landlords (S and L) attended the hearing which was held remotely.
This is a tenant application for the refund of the bond of $1,950.00.
The landlords have not made an application to the Tribunal but told me in the hearing that they disagree with the tenants being refunded their full bond.
The law says that, if a tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file their own application with the Tribunal; section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlords said they would make an application. They explained that they had thought they had done this by replying to the Tenancy Services Bond Centre to say they disagreed with the tenants being refunded the bond.
Both the tenants and the landlords then agreed to me hearing the landlords claim as part of this application. This avoids another hearing and delay.
The landlords sent evidence to the Tribunal and to the tenants during the hearing. I have taken all evidence into account.

What is the dispute about?

This periodic tenancy started on 26 October 2024. After some months, the tenants decided to look for somewhere else to live.
R sent a text to S to end the tenancy.
The tenants provided a screenshot from a phone which shows a text was sent on 15 May at 2:22pm (“the text notice”), the relevant part of which says: Hi [S] it’s [R] here, just letting you know this is an official hand in of our 3 weeks notice to terminate our tenancy agreement. Beginning 16 th of May to the 6 th of June.
S says he did not receive this text.
The landlords provided a screenshot from a phone which includes texts before (25 Oct 18:53) and after (15 May 14:27) the text notice but does not show the text notice itself.
The landlords agree that they did receive an email from a property management company on 15 May 2025, asking them to provide a written reference for the tenants. The landlords say this is why S sent the text to R that day (15 May 14:27) asking if the email was spam. That text said: “hi bro, got an email, just checking if it is [redacted]. Re reference” (sic spam)
I was also provided with a screenshot of a WhatsApp message S sent to C on “Thu, 15 May at 3:16pm” asking if the email request for a reference was genuine. C replied, a minute later, to say the request was genuine.
The landlord says he provided the reference.
Both parties agree there was no other communication between them until the weekly rent due on 31 May 2025 was not paid.
The landlord says he phoned one of the tenants on 3 June 2025 to ask about the unpaid rent, and at the same time asked whether the tenants were moving. The tenant said, yes, we are moving on the 6 th .
The landlords say this was the first they knew that the tenants were moving out, or of the vacate date.
The landlords say the tenants did not send the notice to terminate the tenancy to an address for service which was either to the landlords’ postal address or email address as written on the tenancy agreement. They say the fact that they did not receive the text notice meant they were disadvantaged in not advertising for new tenants earlier and have lost rent because of this. They claim rent for a 21-day notice period.

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues to be decided are:- a. Have the tenants proved that the landlords received the tenants text notice to terminate the tenancy? b. If the answer to the first question is “no”, is it sufficient for the tenants to show they sent the text notice? c. If the sending of the text notice is not sufficient notice, are the landlords entitled to rent in lieu of notice and, if so, how much?

What does the law say about service of notices to terminate a tenancy?

Section 51(2A) RTA says a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice. The notice must be in writing; s51(3) RTA.
Section 136 RTA sets out various ways in which notices or other documents may be served on a landlord or tenant.
These methods are not mandatory. If someone acknowledges receiving the notice or document, or if you can prove they did, then service can be by any method. 1
The difficulty comes when the person receiving the notice or document says they did not receive it, and you cannot prove they did. It is then that section 136 is important. 1 Confirmed in regard to section 136 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by the High Court in Schmidt v Hair HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6804, 3 May 2011 at 65, and by the District Court in Franicevic v KGH Trust [2016] NZDC 10582 at 16.
The relevant part of section 136 RTA says:
The RTA defines a “contact address” and an “address for service” differently. The former is defined in section 2 RTA as:
The latter is defined in section 13AB RTA as: Have the tenants proved that the landlords received the text notice to terminate the tenancy?
Both parties provided screenshots from mobile phones.
The tenants’ screenshot is of the text notice they say was sent to the landlord.
The landlords’ screenshot does not show the text notice.
Both parties gave oral evidence: R says he sent the text notice to S. S says he did not receive the text notice.
I was not provided with sent or delivery receipts, or any other technological proof that the text notice was sent or received.
The tenants say I should infer the landlord must have known they were leaving because he received the email request for a reference on the same day – on 15 May 2025.
The landlord says all he knew from the reference request was that the tenants were looking for another property to rent, not that they had been successful and had a moving date.
Both parties agree that there was no other direct conversation about a termination or moving date until the phone conversation on 3 June 2025.
The tenants accept that they did not send notice to terminate the tenancy by email or any other method except the text notice.
My decision is that the tenants have not proved that it is more probable than not that the landlord/s received their text notice. I accept that R sent the text to S, and I also accept that S did not receive it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. If the answer to the first question is “no”, is it sufficient for the tenants to show they sent the text notice?
If a party cannot prove the other person received their notice or document, section 136 RTA says it is “sufficient if it is given or served” in any of the ways listed in that section.
In other words, the person who gives or serves the notice or document does not have to show the other person actually received it. It is sufficient if they can show they gave or served it in one of the ways listed.
Section 136(1)(d) RTA says the notice or document “ ... may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service.”
As from 20 March 2025, an electronic address may include a mobile telephone number; s13AB(3) RTA. 2
However, the electronic address must be given as an address for service by the relevant party.
An address for service is “an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted”; s13AB RTA. 2 Section 13AB RTA was amended to add mobile telephone numbers and instant messaging services as additional addresses for service as from 20 March 2025.
The ‘landlord details’ section of the tenancy agreement between the parties says:
The tenancy agreement lists a physical address for service and an email address which it says, “will be used as an address for service (strike out if not agreed)”.
None of the words are struck out and an email address is listed. This means the email address has been given as an address for service.
The next line is for phone numbers, but nowhere is it stated that these are an address for service. This is not surprising because at the time this tenancy agreement was signed, a mobile telephone number could not be an address for service. 3
The next section under “Additional address for service” is blank.
The tenants say that they mostly communicated with the landlords by text or by WhatsApp and only used email at the start of the tenancy when the tenancy agreement was being signed.
They say that it should be enough that they sent the notice to terminate the tenancy by text because the landlord’s mobile telephone number is listed on the tenancy agreement and that number was used regularly for communication during the tenancy.
I accept that S’s mobile number may well have been used as one of the main communication methods during the tenancy.
However, a contact address and an address for service are different things (as I discuss earlier in this decision).
There is no evidence the landlords sent formal notices or documents to the tenants by text or agreed to the tenants doing so, or otherwise gave S’s mobile telephone number as an address for service. 3 Because s13AB(3) RTA had not yet come into force; see footnote 2.
My decision is that the landlords did not give S’s mobile telephone number as an address for service.
This means it is not enough for the tenants to show they sent the text notice to terminate the tenancy. This does not satisfy s136(1)(d) RTA.
I note that even if the landlords had given their mobile number as an address for service, the tenants’ screenshot of the text notice may not be enough evidence to prove that it was “transmitted”, as is also required by s136(1)(d) RTA. I said in the hearing that I do not know what technological evidence might be available to verify that a text has been transmitted, or sent, or delivered or received. It may be that certain text messaging services can provide data reports or other evidence that a text has been sent to a certain mobile telephone number. If the sending of the text notice is not sufficient notice, are the landlords entitled to rent in lieu of notice and, if so, how much?
My decision means that the sending of the tenants’ text notice is not sufficient to prove service on the landlord.
S says he found out on 3 June 2025 that the tenants were moving out on 6 June 2025.
My decision is that the required 21-day notice period started on 4 June 2025 and ended on 24 June 2025. The landlords were not given written notice, but I find that they accepted oral notice from the tenants in the phone call on 3 June 2025.
The landlord is entitled to rent in lieu of effective notice up until 24 June 2025 or until the day before a subsequent tenancy started, whichever is the earlier.
The landlords say they did advertise and find new tenants, but the next tenancy did not start until sometime in September. I accept their oral evidence of this.
The landlords provided a rent ledger which shows the tenants have paid rent up to 6 June 2025.
The amount of rent owing from 7 June to 24 June 2025 is $1,671.43 (18 days of rent at $92.86 per day, or $650.00 per week).
I award that amount to the landlords as rent in lieu of notice to be paid from the bond. Filing fee and suppression of names
I leave the filing fee as paid as the tenants have not succeeded with their claim.
However, the tenants did genuinely intend to give the landlords the proper notice to terminate the tenancy. They made a mistake by not also sending this to the landlords’ address for service to guard against a failed delivery but have otherwise done nothing wrong. I suppress their names from the published order as their interests in not being prejudiced in obtaining future tenancies outweighs any public interest in their identities; s95A(4) RTA.
I also suppress the landlords’ names as they have been successful in claiming rent in lieu of effective notice and there is nothing in their conduct or public interest to justify publication; s95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315567 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315567 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the dispute about?

What are the issues to be decided?

What does the law say about service of notices to terminate a tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the dispute about?

What are the issues to be decided?

What does the law say about service of notices to terminate a tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions