What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368741 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 5368741?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368741 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 5368741?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368741?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368741 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368741 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368741 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at midnight on Friday 9 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay $28.00 from the bond of $1,275.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,247.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant.
The hearing proceeded in person. [The landlord’s representatives], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant appeared. Background
The relevant background will be discussed more fully below. However, the tenancy commenced on 20 September 2019 and is periodic. Tenant’s claims
At the hearing, the tenant confirmed their claim.
The tenant seeks an order setting aside the 90-day notice terminating their tenancy and an order for name suppression Landlord’s claims
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. An order for possession of the property following the expiry of the 90-day notice. b. Reimbursement of the filing fee. c. Name suppression.
At the hearing, the Tribunal declined to amend the landlord’s claim to include an order for rent arrears. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. The tenant has not been fully informed of the landlord’s intention to seek such an order and on that basis had not been afforded the opportunity to prepare to answer the claim. The landlord is not prevented from making a further application in respect of this matter. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Tenant’s claim
The tenant seeks an order setting aside the 90-day notice terminating their tenancy.
The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the 90-day notice. It is dated 17 July 2025 and terminated the tenancy on 16 October 2025. The notice was issued by [Property manager], Property Manager at [The property management company].
The tenant challenges the notice on the following grounds:

Is the Property Manager an Agent of the Landlord?

The tenant claims that the Property Manager is not an Agent of the landlord and has no lawful authority to serve them with a 90-day notice. The tenant states the landlords have never issued them with a notice advising that management of the property has been passed to [The property management company].
The tenant states that they only learnt [The property management company] had been appointed as property managers for their tenancy after receiving a telephone call from them query a missed rent payment on 5 December 2025.
The tenant acknowledged the existence of a notice dated 25 September 2024 appointing [The property management company] as property managers for the property. The tenant challenges the validity of the notice saying it was only signed by one and not both of their landlords.
The tenant also claims they did not receive a copy of this notice until after attending mediation in November 2025.
The property manager provided the Tribunal with a copy of the notice, dated 25 September 2024, and signed by one of the landlords. The notice states that: “Please be advised that we have appointed [The property management company] as our property managers for the above property.” The notice identifies the name of the landlords, the address of the property and states that [The property management company] will shortly be providing information about rent payments.
On 8 November 2024, the property manager said they notified the tenant of a routine property inspection to take place at the property on 15 November 2024. The property manager said that it was during this routine property inspection that the notice advising of the change in property managers was personally served on the tenant. The property manager said during that visit they took the opportunity to introduce themselves to the tenant, confirmed they had the tenants most recent contact details, assess the condition of the property and identified an issue with the oven door which they arranged to be repaired.
The property manager said that on 21 November 2024 they e-mailed the tenant their bank account details and asked for the rent to be paid into this account going forward. The tenant has actioned this request.
The property manager provided a timeline of their contact with the tenant which shows that on 29 November 2024 the tenant contacted them to report an issue with a loose kitchen tap and on 6 December 2024 the tenant contacted them to report illegal parking at the property.
The landlord said that only one of the landlords signed the change of property management authorisation form because the other landlord was assisting a family member with a serious medical issue and unavailable at the time. The property manager confirm that the landlords have instructed [Property manager], Managing Direction of [The property management company], to manage their portfolio of properties.
The Tribunal finds that [The property management company] is an agent of the landlord and was entitled to serve the 90-day notice. That is because the landlord properly advised the tenant of the change of property manager in a document dated 25 September 2024. The Tribunal accepts the property managers evidence that this document was personally served on the tenant on 15 November 2024. While there was only one landlord signature attached to the change of property management form, I accept that the landlord signed on behalf of their spouse, who was indisposed due to family responsibilities, and that both landlords intended for the management of the property to be passed to [The property management company].
The Tribunal notes that the tenant has been treating [The property management company] as the agent of their landlord since late November 2024 by arranging for their rent to be paid into [an account of the property management company] and relying on [The property management company] to remedy any maintenance, repair, and other issues with the tenancy.

Is the 90-day notice valid?

Section 51(1) of the Act states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice.
Section 51(3) of the Act states that every notice to terminate a tenancy shall; a. Be in writing; and b. Identify the premises to which it relates; and c. Specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and d. if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for termination; and e. be signed by the party giving notice, or by the party’s agent.
Section 51(4) of the Act states that no special form of words is required to terminate a tenancy, and no notice shall be held to be invalid for any failure to strictly comply with subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing and the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date is clearly specified.
The tenant claims the 90-day notice is invalid because there is no handwritten signature on the document only the typed name of a [property manager at the property management company].
The property manager states that the notice is valid as a handwritten signature is not required on notices that are sent electronically.
The use of e-signatures is covered in Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the CCL Act). The CCL Act allows e-signatures to be used wherever normal, handwritten signatures are required. To be valid the e-signature must: a. Clearly identify the signer and their intention to sign the document. b. Be reliable. c. The person receiving the signed information consented to receiving the signature in electronic form.
In this case the Tribunal finds that the 90-day notice is valid. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. The property manager is clearly identifiable and the reason for signing the notice is clearly stated. The e-signature is reliable as it can be attributed to the signer and was generated under the signer’s control. The tenant consented to receiving electronic copies of documents as they provided their e-mail address as one of the addresses for service.
If the Tribunal is wrong on this point and the e-signature is not valid, the Tribunal would still find the 90-day notice to be valid because it was in writing and the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date was clearly specified.

Was the 90-day notice properly served on the tenant?

The tenant claims the 90-day notice was not properly served, claiming to have only received a copy of it on 10 September 2025 following a routine property inspection.
The tenant claims they have traversed their e-mail correspondence with the property manager and have been unable to locate and e-mail with a copy of the 90-day notice attached. The tenant states that as they only received the 90-day notice on 10 September 2025 the property manager has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. On that basis the tenant asks the Tribunal to order the notice to be set aside and direct the landlord to properly serve a new 90-day notice.
The property manager provided the Tribunal with a copy of an e-mail sent to the tenant’s e-mail address for service on 17 July 2025 at 2:20pm. The e-mail was entitled [Tenancy address] termination of Tenancy. Attached to the e-mail was a copy of the 90-day notice. The tenant replied to that e-mail at 35 minutes later. The tenant did not acknowledged the 90-day notice but provided the property manager with information about rent.
The Tribunal confirmed the tenant’s e-mail address for service. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant was properly served with the 90-day notice to her e-mail address for service on the date and time specified by the property manager. On that basis the Tribunal finds the 90-day notice was properly served on the tenant.
The Tribunal has found: a. The property manager is an agent of the landlord. b. The 90-day notice was valid. c. The 90-day notice was properly served. On that basis the tenant’s application is dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 16 October 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied.
The property manager acknowledges the tenant has lived in the property since 2019 and will require sometime to find alternative accommodation. At the hearing, the property manager said they would allow the tenant to remain in the property until the second week in January 2026 provided the rent was paid.
The tenant said she has been trying unsuccessfully to find alternative accommodation and has nowhere else to live. The tenant asked for time to secure a new home.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the landlord possession of the property from midnight on Friday 9 January 2026. This will provide the tenant with time to vacate the property and return it to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required by the Act.
The tenant is reminded of their obligation to pay rent as and when it falls due. Failure to do so could result in a further application being made to the Tribunal for rent arrears. Other matters
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant also seeks name suppression. While the facts and reasons of the case may be in the public interest, having heard from the parties, I do not think that this extends to naming the tenant and on that basis the name and identifying particulars of the tenant are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368741 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368741 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the Property Manager an Agent of the Landlord?

Is the 90-day notice valid?

Was the 90-day notice properly served on the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the Property Manager an Agent of the Landlord?

Is the 90-day notice valid?

Was the 90-day notice properly served on the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions