What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325468 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 5325468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325468 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 5325468?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325468 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for possession is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The landlord has applied for a possession order.

Is there a residential tenancy?

There is some controversy about the circumstances in which the tenancy started. The landlord alleges that the tenant moved in without permission on 20 June 2022, and despite being informed that the landlord had already agreed to rent the premises to someone else. The landlord also alleges that he signed the tenancy agreement under duress and the tenant then refused to provide a copy.
The tenant produced a signed copy of the tenancy agreement with a commencement date of 11 June 2022. The tenant denied forcing the landlord to sign. Both parties agreed there were significant rent arrears to begin with, but this has been paid off. The weekly rent of $400.00 is being paid.
I am satisfied that there is a periodic tenancy for residential premises at a weekly rent of $400.00. Whatever the status of the written tenancy agreement, clearly at some point the landlord permitted the tenant to occupy the premises on condition that he paid the rent.

Has valid notice been given?

The landlord served a 90-day notice of termination on 20 February 2025. The notice purported to terminate the tenancy from 24 May 2025. The tenant said the termination notice was not received and he did not know about it until the landlord filed the application. The landlord has provided a screenshot from the NZ Post website showing that the notice was delivered to the premises on 24 February 2025. I find that the notice was served on the tenant pursuant to section 91A(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord was required to give at least 90 days’ notice. The 20 February 2025 notice was not delivered until 24 February 2025. Pursuant to section 136A(7) of the Act, the document was deemed to be served two working days later. If so, then although the notice complied with all other requirements, it did not give at least 90 days’ notice and therefore, did not comply with section 51(1). I find that the 20 February 2025 notice was invalid.

Can a possession order be made?

The final requirement, pursuant to section 64 of the Act, is that no possession order can be made more than 90 days after the tenancy ended. The landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order on 13 August 2025. The application was immediately put on hold for lack of contact details for the tenant. Tenancy Services advised the landlord of this on 14 August 2025. On 17 September 2025 the landlord spoke to Tenancy Services and on 15 October 2025 the notice of hearing was issued.
On the face of it, a possession order cannot be made, because the tenancy ended on 24 May 2025 (about 180 days ago). The landlord filed his application within the 90-day period, but it was then delayed because the application was missing the tenant’s contact details: the landlord said the tenant moved in without providing them. I also understood from the landlord that an earlier application had been refused because the wrong fee was paid.
The Tribunal does not apply section 64 in an inflexible way (Crockers Property Management Limited & Another v Ransfield (TT Auckland, 14 June 2013, 12/03813/AK)). Nonetheless the provision states in mandatory terms: “No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.”
The application was filed about 81 days after termination of the tenancy. The landlord could have issued his application as soon as the termination notice expired. Further delay was caused by the landlord not providing all necessary information.
It is not clear that any delay was caused by the tenant, given the conflicting evidence about how the tenancy began. I note that, in written submissions, in one place the landlord stated that the tenant had refused to sign a tenancy agreement; in another the landlord raised duress and said he did not have a copy of the agreement.
This is not a case where relevant delay was clearly caused by the tenant or the Tribunal’s own processes. I find that section 64(2) prevents the Tribunal from making a possession order. The landlord must serve a further 90-day notice and obtain a possession order within 90 days of termination of the tenancy. I note that such an order must also be enforced within 90 days. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. The landlord supported the tenant’s request for suppression on the basis he did not want to make it harder for the tenant to find a new home. The landlord’s application has not been successful, but only because of technicalities around notices. I grant suppression to both parties.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for possession is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 November 2025. The landlord has applied for a possession order.

Is there a residential tenancy?

There is some controversy about the circumstances in which the tenancy started. The landlord alleges that the tenant moved in without permission on 20 June 2022, and despite being informed that the landlord had already agreed to rent the premises to someone else. The landlord also alleges that he signed the tenancy agreement under duress and the tenant then refused to provide a copy.
The tenant produced a signed copy of the tenancy agreement with a commencement date of 11 June 2022. The tenant denied forcing the landlord to sign. Both parties agreed there were significant rent arrears to begin with, but this has been paid off. The weekly rent of $400.00 is being paid.
I am satisfied that there is a periodic tenancy for residential premises at a weekly rent of $400.00. Whatever the status of the written tenancy agreement, clearly at some point the landlord permitted the tenant to occupy the premises on condition that he paid the rent.

Has valid notice been given?

The landlord served a 90-day notice of termination on 20 February 2025. The notice purported to terminate the tenancy from 24 May 2025. The tenant said the termination notice was not received and he did not know about it until the landlord filed the application. The landlord has provided a screenshot from the NZ Post website showing that the notice was delivered to the premises on 24 February 2025. I find that the notice was served on the tenant pursuant to section 91A(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord was required to give at least 90 days’ notice. The 20 February 2025 notice was not delivered until 24 February 2025. Pursuant to section 136A(7) of the Act, the document was deemed to be served two working days later. If so, then although the notice complied with all other requirements, it did not give at least 90 days’ notice and therefore, did not comply with section 51(1). I find that the 20 February 2025 notice was invalid.

Can a possession order be made?

The final requirement, pursuant to section 64 of the Act, is that no possession order can be made more than 90 days after the tenancy ended. The landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order on 13 August 2025. The application was immediately put on hold for lack of contact details for the tenant. Tenancy Services advised the landlord of this on 14 August 2025. On 17 September 2025 the landlord spoke to Tenancy Services and on 15 October 2025 the notice of hearing was issued.
On the face of it, a possession order cannot be made, because the tenancy ended on 24 May 2025 (about 180 days ago). The landlord filed his application within the 90-day period, but it was then delayed because the application was missing the tenant’s contact details: the landlord said the tenant moved in without providing them. I also understood from the landlord that an earlier application had been refused because the wrong fee was paid.
The Tribunal does not apply section 64 in an inflexible way (Crockers Property Management Limited & Another v Ransfield (TT Auckland, 14 June 2013, 12/03813/AK)). Nonetheless the provision states in mandatory terms: “No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.”
The application was filed about 81 days after termination of the tenancy. The landlord could have issued his application as soon as the termination notice expired. Further delay was caused by the landlord not providing all necessary information.
It is not clear that any delay was caused by the tenant, given the conflicting evidence about how the tenancy began. I note that, in written submissions, in one place the landlord stated that the tenant had refused to sign a tenancy agreement; in another the landlord raised duress and said he did not have a copy of the agreement.
This is not a case where relevant delay was clearly caused by the tenant or the Tribunal’s own processes. I find that section 64(2) prevents the Tribunal from making a possession order. The landlord must serve a further 90-day notice and obtain a possession order within 90 days of termination of the tenancy. I note that such an order must also be enforced within 90 days. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. The landlord supported the tenant’s request for suppression on the basis he did not want to make it harder for the tenant to find a new home. The landlord’s application has not been successful, but only because of technicalities around notices. I grant suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325468 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325468 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a residential tenancy?

Has valid notice been given?

Can a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a residential tenancy?

Has valid notice been given?

Can a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions