Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5328963 — Tenancy dispute at 19B Baycroft Avenue, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112
Decided 10 Sept 2025 · Published 10 Sept 2025 · Application 5328963
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
Tauranga
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 tenant’s claim is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held at Tauranga Tenancy Tribunal.
- On 16 June 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice ending the tenancy on 25 September 2025.
- The tenant now makes an application to the Tribunal claiming that the notice is retaliatory and is therefore of no effect.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Further, the tenant must make the claim within 28 days of the notice being received.
- I am dismissing the claim because the application was not made within 28 days of the tenant receiving the notice. The Courts have said that this time frame is strict – that is, there is no flexibility for the Tribunal to consider an application out of time.
- Even if the claim was made within the 28 days, there is no evidence to show that the notice was given as a response to the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), or by any complaint against the landlord. The tenant had not exercised any such right and there was no evidence of any complaint.
- At today’s hearing the tenant appeared not to understand her claim, other than her wish that she be given a second chance.
- I explained that a landlord is entitled to give 90 days’ notice of termination without having to give a reason for that notice – see s51(a) RTA.
- The Tribunal cannot set aside the notice because it is lawful and there are no grounds to do so.
- For all of the above reasons I am dismissing the tenant’s claim.
- I am, however, allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name pursuant to s95A(1) RTA. I do so because I consider there is no public interest in having her name published. I have also taken into account that the landlord supported this application.
- I note that at today’s hearing the landlord agreed to an extension of the tenant’s tenancy to 10 October 2025. This was so as to allow her extra time to make other living arrangements. C ter Haar 10 September 2025